This Motion DID NOT PASS. The final vote was 52% in favor. [24 Yes / 22 No]
Members were not in favor of having a Town Hall to discuss the issue. [20 Yes / 23 No]
This motion is being recommended by Liz S
Issue: I move that we have a policy of no obscenities and no ALL CAPS screaming in the public chat.
Voting will be open until September 5, 2024
This motion is being recommended by Liz S
Issue: I move that we have a policy of no obscenities and no ALL CAPS screaming in the public chat.
Background: On Friday July 12th someone posted in the chat: “WE’VE BEEN MINDFUCKED, AND NOW THE GREAT UNFUCK MUST BEGIN”. Kalle Lasn (GENE-rational caused dis-ease)
If people choose to post and recite quotes before the meeting starts, I suggest we avoid obscenities. I find this language extremely offensive.
Thank you for considering this suggestion. Liz
ACA Tradition Three
The only requirement for membership in ACA is a desire to
recover from the effects of growing up in an alcoholic or
otherwise dysfunctional family.
Exactly.
Yes, this witchhunt of members who don’t fit into the mould has to stop. I didn’t care for the comment or the caps but I used my tools and moved on and if I had continued to have an issue I would have spoken to them directly.
Thank you for this suggestion. I agree with you 100%.
I totally agree that obscenities, attacks on others and other ‘flaming’ do not belong in our meeting in any way. Not only are they counter-productive, they can be hurtful and can create unsafety and trauma. More trauma is the last thing we need. I support this proposal.
I do not think we should police or judge the way people share. When I am triggered, I believe it is my work to do to understand my own triggers and find a way to tend to the feelings that come up. Censoring our expression in this meeting in anyway would cause much harm. I also feel concerned that the text is copied here to call out this person. It feels cruel and punitive and against an accepting atmosphere. Take what you like and leave the rest.
I feel strongly opposed to policing the chat, or anything, really. As an ACA, a lot of things hurt and offend, which is why I go to the meetings and work the programme. If I am to get better, I can’t willingly put myself into a situation where someone has the power to control me.
For me obscenities are like a sudden loud noise in the middle of a share. For me it is disruptive.
I do not support this motion. This quote wasn’t an attack on anyone, it was shared as a quote that resonated with someone. Take what you like and leave the rest.
I agree that the comment should not have been copied and pasted. I do not like the profanity. I use profanity from time to time but I use discretion.
I have had the effects of my PTSD do things I regret or am ashamed of but I meant no harm though harm was caused and I think the BRB cautions against who or what type of behavior should be disapproved of considering the childhood effects that still affect me whether I act inappropriately or whether I judge, which is OK for me to judge if I am being trigged in ways I need to address and sometimes I avoid addressing. I know I don’t always have control over me and what I think is appropriate or humorous may offend others thanks (I also have the right to change my mind)
We are here to develop healthy connection skills, and that includes handling ourselves as an adult following Self-Leadership principles. While “accidents happen” when an adult is not in the room, and our Loving Parent is not in the driver’s seat, repeated evidence of an inability to learn how to self-manage raises questions to me about the person’s readiness to participate in group healing work, as through our ACA SMR Morning meetings. Particularly when harassing a fellow traveler or creating a toxic environment for healing. I recommend a more experienced fellow traveler or a room host suggest (privately is best) that the person speak to their sponsor or to a therapist to address the issues at the root of the acting out behavior.
There is a place and time to have meetings with requirements on ability to and willingness to participate with a heightened degree of decorum, but our general meetings are not it. The traditions’ principles are meant to be attractive and inclusive. Short of personal attacks or violence, we should allow folks to express themselves however they feel in that moment. And even then, our first response should be reconciliation, exclusion should be the last effort.
I think it would be impossible to police what people are going to say. I understand that it would be nice if we could communicate in a more civilized fashion though trying to censor emotionally charged people in recovery what they can share is close to a “no talk rule”. Maybe it could be added to the script that this meeting encourages not using Fbombs as a suggestion though not a hardline rule.
Tradition 4: Each group is autonomous except in matters affecting other groups or ACA as a whole. We cooperate with all other Twelve-Step programs. On occasion this may happen, but it doesn’t happen every day or even every week. On occasion I may say a curse word in my share, but not every day or every share. Rarely do I see this in the chat, and rarely do I hear in a share a curse word. Are we going to police every person because on occasion a curse word pops up? I personally do not believe we need to police an ALL CAPS in the chat either because this happens one time. I am responsible for my feelings, my recovery, my trauma, my triggers. It’s not your problem that I am triggered. In the beginning if I was triggered I had to walk away from that person forever. As time went on and I had more recovery under my belt, I realized these were areas that I needed work on. Now if the chat cursing were happening more frequently, I may have a different opinion on this matter considering the size of our group. There are groups that are open to freely cursing and zero time limits.
Agree. Remind group to avoid obscenity and violent language.
This proposal feels really restrictive and rigid which is similar to the home I grew up in. If we are to police what people write and how they write it, perhaps we can find a gentler way to do so that has less judgement attached?
I do not think it is productive for myself to police others. I can ignore the chat or mute when someone says something that is too much for me to handle. I don’t want the SMR to tell ppl they can’t do something because it makes someone else feel a certain way. ACA is the 12 step pgm where we finally take responsibility for our feelings. Being easily offended and taking things personally is a fight response and a sign of low self esteem. You can’t ‘make’ me feel anything – this is old stuff I need to work on.
I would prefer to have the coffee quotes removed altogether. They introduce non-approved ideas/literature at a time when newcomers are arriving and may get a perspective that is very non-ACA.
I’m most offended by the all CAPS. It’s pretty widely accepted that this indicates a loud voice (i.e., screaming). I would be potentially disciplined for using all CAPS in my job-related communication. Would we want someone to scream out a quote at the beginning of our meetings?
By the way, I’d really love for there not to be comments made when a newcomer says where they are calling in from . I experience that as a form of cross talk.
Thanks for listening!
I’ve got to say I’m pleasantly surprised by the amount of “Live and Let Live” comments.
Of course, there are obvious lines that can’t be crossed, but I’m not sure the lines can be defined in a group conscious or policy.
I agree that comments about a newcomer’s location are cross talk. I also feel like the bursts of different welcome messages to each newcomer can be distracting and potentially overwhelming. A simple welcome from the chair – consistent for each newcomer – would feel more democratic and less chaotic.
100% agree. The group welcomes are loud and the response for each person is different. And pllllllease can we refrain from “Another New Yorker!” I do not agree with someone who said it is meant to be inclusive (“Everyone is a New Yorker!”). It is exclusionary for many and is often spoken with an extra-appreciative or cheery tone of voice that is absent from other greetings.
Trying to restrict certain types of communication from other people to avoid experiencing a negative reaction inside myself… I feel like this is why I’m in ACA, to accept responsibility for myself and let go of trying to control others.
Although general use of profanity and CAPS are interpreted by a percentage of people as rude or offensive, this is their personal choice to have their perception and opinion. Just like it’s a personal choice how a person expresses themselves. We don’t tell people what words they can or cannot use in their shares.
If this use of language was directed At someone then it would be a different story.
I empathize with those that are bothered by this situation, however I am grateful for the growth I have made in ACA to be able release the burden of trying to control others in order make myself feel better (or attempt to avoid my own unwanted feelings). I am grateful to accept the things I cannot change and remind myself that the only thing I can change is me.
This is a Twelve Step Fellowship. My understanding is the meeting’s nature is to be open to everyone. As such I feel it needs to be welcoming, respectful and non-restrictive towards people who may not have nice words to articulate their deep feelings.
If I’m not restricted from cussing in my verbal shares, how is the chat any different? Maybe some of us are using profanity we were restricted from using our whole life. We don’t know what another feels they need to express. If I’m triggered, it’s an opportunity for me to breathe and learn how to take care of myself and my inner parts. There are always going to be triggers, and I can reparent through them. It’s not my job to change someone else, which I can never really do anyway.
I do agree about not making comments other than a welcome when a newcomer introduces themselves. For example, if someone is recognized for their location/state, (those from New York in particular seem to get the most attention), or saying things like “oh you’re up early” to those on the West Coast, then another newcomer who introduced themselves may feel slighted that they didn’t get any special recognition. This practice is singling out some and not others. It is not all-inclusive—and that goes against the tenets of ACA.
I agree with many of the comments along the lines of “live and let live”. I feel like it is extremely dangerous and antithetical to our group conscience as stated in our literature to be creating a motion based upon a single incident, trying to police exactly HOW a person expresses themselves using EXACTLY WHAT words (caps intended, as an example). Tradition One: “Our common welfare should come first; personal recovery depends on ACA unity.” This proposal, in the guise of protecting the common welfare, seems more about controlling others in order to make certain individuals feel more comfortable with their own triggers. What is most important for me, as others have commented as well, is to become aware of my own triggers and to attend them using the tools and support of this program. In the BRB, under the section “Cross Talk”, subsection “Commenting On” p. 574: “In ACA we accept what each person shares as true for them. We go to great lengths to avoid creating the climate of shame that enforced the three primary rules of a dysfunctional family: don’t talk, don’t trust, don’t feel. In ACA, we simply do not make comments either positive or negative about another person’s share before, during, or after a meeting.” Is calling out this ONE COMMENT directly, repeating it, reposting it, making a motion about it, creating a climate of shame? Are we, as a group, going to GREAT LENGTHS to ***avoid*** creating a climate of shame by this proposal, trying to police what kind of words, and how they are punctuated, ACAs use to express their **own** experience? Are we, by the very practice of this proposal, engaging in cross-talk? Of what an ACA posted BEFORE a meeting? “Cross Talk” subsection “Fixing Others” p.575: “In ACA, we are learning to take care of ourselves and not to attempt to fix others. We support others by accepting them into our meetings and listening to them while they face their pain. We learn to listen, which is often the greatest support of all.” For me, if listening to or witnessing another’s facing their pain, in and out of program, is a bit much for me, I try my best to practice the tools & actions coming from love that I am learning in this program and take steps to attend my own needs. Curtailing another’s right to express their pain however they see fit is not up to me. Personally, I found the quote repeated in this proposal to be humorous. I missed that chat, I rarely follow the chat, so I am sort of pleased to get to have read it in the end. There is some poignant literature on disruptive behavior and how to handle it. I can’t seem to locate it at the moment to quote here. Too bad, it is really beautiful and helpful, I think.
BUt, my final thoughts here: if we ARE going to police the use of OBSCENITIES and punctuation, can we ***PLeAsE** STOP using the word FAMILY ???!! That word, for me, is MUCH worse, MORE hypocritical, damaging, toxic & triggering than any fbomb or all caps could ever be. I don’t think I will ever see THAT blessed day but if this motion does indeed pass, then I will propose excising the use of the word FAMILY in people’s shares, comments, etc, and thereby jump on the bandwagon of whittling down this fellowship to suit my personal comfort level with my own specific triggers. Thank you for reading. xo
Censoring how and what another person says does not align with the spirit of the program. If I’m offended by what or how another person communicates, I have choices to self-regulate and respond; if necessary. Putting tape over someone else’s mouth isn’t one of them. I’m here to learn how to be triggered and respond/react appropriately regardless of what comes my way.
While learning how to better respond to others dysfunctional abuse is a skill we learn here, so is not being disfunctionally abusive to others by cursing or yelling. I think there is no reason to officially condone yelling (all caps) or cursing at anyone in these meetings. Honestly that sounds like I’m being gaslit. I say none of that. Further, I’m not here to learn how to tolerate someone’s abuse. I’m here to learn to recognize it and avoid it. I’m not here for an exercise in accepting abuse. That’s kind of the opposite direction I’m heading in.
There is no penalty or enforcement suggested so it’s really more of a guideline and as such I think it is perfectly fine. When it happens the person will likely get a gentle reminder and that’s all, so all the fear of “policing” and oppression seems overdone.
some people get off on policing others, even policing how others share. this is not a healthy motivation.
if we moved to remove all triggers, then no one would be able to talk, ever