My cheeks are flaming here, because I somehow overlooked the exceptionally obvious way in which the Kind Blog button could be seen as saying, "Look at me! I'm kind! (That's why I'm better than you!)" Really, I just read the declaration and responded by feeling, "Yes, that's who I want to be, even if it means pulling down my post about 10 Things I Hate About Angelina Jolie."

I suppose in some ways the button could be taken as a form of accountability - if I am publically posting my commitment to be kind, anyone COULD choose to point out my acts of unkindness in their comments. I can't say that I HOPE that happens, because I don't handle criticism well and would certainly find it devastating to be publically taken to task for my unkindness (especially if it were deserved - undeserved criticism is considerably easier to handle).

"Calling" someone on their unkindness is probably difficult for most people to do because it's so hard to do it without being unkind oneself. (Along with the selfish "niceness" that backs away from conflict there is, I think, a very genuine empathy for the person being accused of unkindness.) What's the best way to respond to acts of unkindness? Refusal to participate in them is a good start, I suppose - ending the conversation or email exchange, let's say. I tend to give people credit for knowing that they've been unkind: unkindness probably doesn't usually fall into the category of blind error that needs pointing out.

In a move that's surprising on many levels, the folks at Teen Missions required all participants to write that Philo quote in the front of our Bibles: "Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle." (We also had to write "This book will keep you from sin; sin will keep you from this book" but I've found that one to have considerably less staying power.) What I like about that quote is the word "everyone": it's not up to us to judge whose battle is hardest and thus, who deserves our kindness. We all struggle; we all drink in the kindness of others.

First of all, thank you for the compliment. I believe that kindness equates with love. I totally lacked it for the longest time yet I still strive to pass as much of it around as possible. My hardships don't even seem all that hard to me, because they are my normal. I don't know life any other way.
I'll be honest to say that I've always had my heart in the right place. I've only recently learned in the past year and a half that the things I do for others don't have to be reciprocated. It's when I let go of expectations of others did I finally learn how to love.
When I think hard about it I know I am loved and always was, it was just different than what I had expected. I'm also a strong believer in paying it forward. If a kindness is done for me, I in turn spread it back to others.
You have been the shining light for me every day for the past 17 months, give or take a few weeks. I don't think I would be who I am today without this blog that made me think about who I am and who I want to be. Always striving to be a better person. Thank you.

I have debated whether to put a link to the kind blog in my sidebar, but had a sense of uneasiness, mainly for the reasons you described. On the one hand, I do want readers to feel like they can hold me accountable to some standards, but don't want to really disalusion others either.

You did a great job of tackling this issue with tact and kindly. And I have to say that your blog is one that makes me think about issues of faith differently.

An important topic. I think Theodore Rubin's quote is contradictory. If you were not kind, I don't think you could be considered wise in the first place. You might be knowledgable or intelligent but I would not believe you are wise.
My take on kindness is that it has to be an awareness. You need to use it like a ruler -- so it is a tool. Perhaps a good way to remind yourself of it is to have it in front of your eyes. Not as a claim, but as a post-it note reminder on your blog.
I am an empathic psychic. I am saying this as an explanation of the phenomena I am trying to describe so if that term offends you please don't let it be a topic on this comments list as it is not the owner of this blog who is demonic or satanic or whatever I might be considered it is myself and I have no blog. I have given readings to individuals for about 35 years. Whenever I begin to read for a person I sense sweeping in from behind and beyond me a wave of love. So far it has been impossible for me to not feel admiring and respectful of a person I read because I feel the love passing through not around me. I have never read anyone who was accused of or had committed heinous acts because those people don't seek a reading so I don't know if that would still be true.
I am not able to feel that same level of love for another person. I also know intellectually that I am loved in the same way, but I can't actually conceive of that or 'grok' it. When I put up the post-it note on my screen that says 'Love passeth all understanding' it is to remind me of that experience and try to see other people and myself a bit more lovingly. I don't expect to reach that level of virtue but I want to keep it in my vision.

Oh my, I'm so shallow. I read through that lovely post on kindness, then I got to the comments and my first thought was, "Bubandpie did a post on 10 Things I Hate About Angelina Jolie?!? Gotta read that before she gets too kind and takes it down!"

Maybe I'm not quite ready for a kindness button yet. But I do love the Philo quote; it so epitomizes how I see people (not so much that I am kind, but the attempt to be aware of other people's hard battles).

I believe one can claim kindness without being kind all the time. Buddhism teaches us about No-Self; everything is transient, including our virtues and faults. So one can do unkind deeds while still being a kind person and still valuing kindness; I think the intention behind the deed determines the level of kindness. As you've pointed out, it's in our nature to lash out when we feel threatened, angry, betrayed, outraged, despairing or hopeless, or in any situation that brings out the weaker traits of our humanity. For human we are, and wholly imperfect. It takes serious discipline to thoughtfully choose the kindest action at any particular moment; discipline that often fails us during times of stress, exhaustion, or pain. But we are still capable of kindness and can choose to adopt it as one of our virtues.

But you're right, blanket statements lack truthfulness because they fail to account for impermanence. "Who" we are is constantly in flux, and the virtue or fault changes depending on the particular moment. I'd like to say "I am kind." But that would be false, because there are times when I am selfish, petty, vindictive, even cruel--I don't like to take responsibility for it, but for honesty's sake, I admit it. Since I value kindness and want to cultivate that in myself, I might say, "I usually try to be kind." On the other hand, I could say "I am kind" as a kind of mantra; since I want to act kindly when called upon, I can keep those words in my mind so that when the time comes, my actions develop out of that mindset.

On that same token, I think kindness also refers to compassion for oneself. Sometimes we find it easier to be kind to others than to ourselves (especially if we've been told by people with strong influence in our lives that we are unlovable). From my (admittedly distant and highly subjective) perspective, Andrea, you are not bad at kindness. (And for what it's worth, while Athena did deprive the women of Athens their vote in order to assuade Poseidon's temper, but she also gave them the olive tree--food, oil and wood.)

Since we're all about quotes today:

What you focus on consistently, you become.

(I don't know to whom to give credit for that.)

And one of my favorite American Indian quotes (wise people, the indigenous ones), an Oglala Sioux proverb:
We should be as water, which is lower than all things yet stronger even than the rocks.

Sorry to hijack your comments section for my soapbox, I'll retreat now. (Sheepish grin.)

B&P, is it strange that I have an easier time with deserved criticism? Anyway. You're right--but that's part of the reason I think the whole thing has mostly the potential to become completely meaningless. The genuine people will post it with good intentions and refrain from calling the non-genuine people on their breaches of kindness because it would be itself unkind, which means there is effectively nothing to distinguish blogs that are actually kind from those who simply want to post the button and be seen to participate, which puts us right back where we started, making up our own minds about a blogger's intentions by reading them over time.

I know this is just not that important and it doesn't deserve this level of analysis, but the whole concept of kindness is so important to me, that the thought of a blogosphere full of blinking "I'm kind!" buttons on blogs where people are routinely unkind just .... Ugh.

Laura, I don't know if you have any idea how remarkable your attitude is, but it is. And whatever. This is a very ordinary blog. You get the credit for your own behaviour, so there.

Nickie, exactly.

Gillian, considering my religious practice, I would be shocked if anyone who might think or say those things is reading this. And that summarizes very nicely how I feel about this--I don't expect to achieve it, but I want to keep it in my vision.

Trudy--LOL

Phasic, first, I like long comments; and second, I find it fascinating that coming at this from a completely different philosophical perspective, we came to the same conclusion.

It's also a good point re: kindness for oneself. It's easily forgotten.

This post makes me a little bit sad, and I'm not sure exactly how to respond to it.

In putting the kindness button on my blog, I was simply impulsively agreeing with what was in the original declaration: in my interpretation, it's an acknowledgement that I support an environment of kindness. Period. I'm not the kindness police, and I would never "call" someone on their lack of kindness on their own blog, whether they had posted the button or not.

I don't see it as an issue of superiority (I'm more kind than so-and-so, or I'm morally superior because I stand for kindness), nor as anything more than simply stating plainly, and through a pretty little button, that I believe we should all make a greater effort to be kind.

And for what it's worth, I personally found this sentence bordering on offensive: "Please mean it. Don't let it be just a picture of a light you pin to your chest. Don't forget it's there, along with all the rest of the blog bling twinkling in your sidebar, down at the bottom with the hit counter and your TTLB rank."

I can only speak for my own perspective, but that struck me a highly critical statement of something that was genuinely done with the best of intentions.

I feel badly, but I can't say I'm sorry, because I meant it.

We've talked in the past about your work, and I remember in particular one story you shared with me about a group or person who did a lot of work with the best of intentions, but the result was deeply flawed. I don't want to share any potentially outting details, but I hope you remember the one I'm talking about. THey meant to promote your organization to young people and instead produced something that would probably damage the reputation of your organization. And if I recall correctly, you told them so.

I too work with such situations daily. "You want to build a new bridge into a new park! Fabulous! Looks like a great bridge. Have you considered the impact of increased foot traffic on local wildlife, or the impacts of the bridge itself on fish habitat, and if so, how do you plan to deal with it?" Their good intentions in creating a park and allowing public access via a footbridge don't negate the possibility of the entire project being actually more harmful to local wildlife than the status quo.

It's because kindness is so important to me that this bothers me. If hundreds of blogging mothers want to declare themselves crazy and hip, fine. I don't see any social damage from the dilution of those words to include grocery shopping in puke-stained jogging pants or five hundred repetitions of The Little Engine That Could. But to me, just as words like "family" and "life" have been co-opted by movements and their meanings twisted to meet particular ends, "kind" stands in danger of being seriously diluted if it's adopted as a pretty button and a harmless piece of blog jewelery proudly displayed on blogs that are routinely if unintentionally unkind. I don't see how good intentions by the creator and even most of the participants can prevent that.

Of course Chookooloonks had excellent intentions. From what I can tell of her on her blog, she pretty well always does. And I respect her for wanting to do something about situations where good-hearted bloggers are mocked or hurt by those who are less ... well-meaning, for lack of a better word. I even respect the idea that the solution to negativity is positivity. But I don't, and can't, believe that she has the right to define kindness for the blogosphere; I certainly can't believe that it contains an inherent requirement of trying to make people feel good about the world (though I respect anyone who does feel that way, and I wouldn't argue the opposite either); and I don't think that this is the way to increase that positivity in a meaningful way, though it will probably make a lot of people feel better and like they're doing something.

I mean--her first point is excellent, but did you read the second? What does that mean for me? There is not a chance in ever-loving hell that I will ever consider it my obligation to make my readers feel good. Sometimes, sure. Sometimes I want to be challenging, sometimes I want to inspire people to think about an issue differently, sometimes I hope people will be motivated to act, sometimes I want people to feel uncomfortable. I try to be honest and factual and conduct myself ethically, and kindess is very important, I do strive for it; and if I were to be entirely honest, I'd have to admit that I'm upset that someone would define kindness in a way that excludes me (unintentionally). Which is just one of the ways that excellent intentions can result in something less than excellent.

What would happen if we were to actively meet that negativity with positivity? What if we met the hostility she decries with active kindness? What if, instead of hundreds of furious bloggers heaping scorn and judgement on their heads through comments on blogs that are intentionally hurtful or cruel, we chose either to ignore it, or find a way to comment that is both honest and kind? What if at the same time we responded with love to the blogger who was hurt? What if during our blogging we strove to genuinely meet hostility with kindness and contempt with respect? What if we remembered that the "mean" bloggers are also people who are fighting a hard battle? Wouldn't that be more meaningful and potentially revolutionary than a blog button?

I'm not saying I'm exemplar of that by any means; only that I think the negative effects of this particular idea outweigh the potential positive effects, and that there are better ways to deal with this, better definitions and practices of kindness to strive for.

Kindness IS wisdom.

Sorry, Andrea, we're going to have to agree to disagree here. Despite my best efforts to wrap my head around your arguments, I fail to see the real possibility of "social damage" or even the dilution of the word "kind" from this particular type of use.

As for your argument against the second part of Chookooloonks little declaration: if you're not comfortable with what the declaration says then by all means, don't align yourself with it. I myself have no problem with it. For the most part, I do hope people leave my blog feeling a little bit better about themselves, their lives, the world. Far more than any vote or comment or anything else, the highest compliment someone could pay me was to say they often leave with a smile on their face.

Sure, I will occassionally rant and protest and be negative, and I have been known to whine rather piteously. But for the most part, for the largest majority of the time, I really would like to know that people feel that the time they've spent reading my blog is worthwhile and has made their day a little bit better in some infinitesimal way.

Mostly, though, as I've maintained all along, I simply see this as a sweet little embodiment of something that I already do, something I try to keep in mind with every post and every interaction.

Karen, good point.

Dani, I know that's a big part of blogging for you. All I'm pointing out is that it is not an inherent feature of kindness or a kind blog to be continually 'up'. Imagine if you are a mom of a child with significant health difficulties--hell, imagine Moreena. Her posts regularly make me cry. Is she unkind because her posts aren't 'uppers'? That's absurd.

Oh, I really should let this go, but at least now I understand the root of our divergence.

I can't say that I see this as an attempt to define or contain or "own" kindness. If I thought it was an attempt to say that only blogs bearing this icon are kind, or that *only* blogs who exhibit the characteristics in the declaration can claim to be kind, or if the intention was to be in any way exclusionary, then I would oppose it too. But, as you have no doubt noticed by now, I don't see it that way at all!

If the label were "happy blog" then I would better understand your arguments in this context. I would still like, in general, to also be a "happy blog", but I think someone can be kind - or, more specifically, aspire to kindness - without committing to be continually cheerful or happy or "up."

As usual, an interesting discussion - but one that is keeping me from my better-paying work!!

Stuff I need to add to my previous (long) comment:

1) In the midst of my blushing I didn't properly express how moved and inspired and impressed I was by the first half of this post. (I know, I know, that's a double-edged compliment - obviously my response to the second half is complicated by a variety of factors. So I just want to set that part aside for a second and say that the first part is one of the best things I've ever read.)

2) Phasic - Your comment is so full of wisdom as well. I think you're right that kindness to others is very closely linked to kindness to self. (Both virtues, I suppose, carry the risk of descending into leniency and complacency, but that does not make them any less essential.)

3) Does Chookooloonks' second point imply a commitment to writing nothing but peppy, feel-good posts? Taken by itself, it might, though I would point out that it says nothing about the reader's feelings - it doesn't promise that people will feel good about what they read, but rather that the act of reading the blog should make their day better in some way. Probably the word "day" is what lends itself to the feel-good interpretation: many things may make one's LIFE better without making one's day better. One thing I liked about the declaration, though, is the top part, where things like sadness, snarkiness, passion, and anger are explicitly included, suggesting that true kindness need not exclude any of these things - that it's possible to be committed and even sarcastic sometimes and yet to do so in a way that is mindful of the importance of kindness.

4) On the general issue of making people feel bad: Certainly it is sometimes necessary and salutory. But the underlying goals can often be achieved, possibly even more effectively, by other means. Praise accomplishes more than criticism; a positive example wins more people over than condemnation. The most productive guilt is usually not deliberately inflicted - it's the kind of conviction that people spontaneously acknowledge when they feel safe enough to do so (and that sense of safety usually arises only when we don't feel attacked or criticized).

Dani, that's good enough for me. :)

B&P: 1. Thank you. This was draft #3, so I'm glad to hear it ended up somewhere good.

3. Yes, I think that's exactly it. It's the "make your day better." I also liked the top part; it was a perfect example of her normal eloquence. But I'll admit I'm having a hard time interpreting "make your day better" in any way other than "will be positive/upbeat."

4. It isn't necessarily making people feel BAD or criticizing them. But sometimes, for instance, I'll read something by Emily Elizabeth over at Lovely and Amazing about how her daughter is treated, or Down Syndrome is being handled by a media outlet, and she will be full of despair and I will be furious about it. It didn't make my day better; but her honesty in writing out of her despair makes me even more determined not to repeat those mistakes myself and more willing to speak up if I witness a similar situation. I think those are entirely positive effects, though in no way did it make my day better to read it. It made ME better, and it made the world better in a small but important way.

And I think, too, that it's an important element of kindness to be willing to witness someone else's grief or rage or despair, which can't happen if the other believes that the expression of those emotions is inherently unkind or wrong.

Agreed.

Great post. I can't really add to anything you said, but maybe just echo your intention with a quotation from the Dalai Lama:

There is no need for temples, no need for complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our temple: the philosophy is kindness.

Damn it, Andrea. I resisted for four days, but now I can no longer stop myself.

Everybody sing!

Cruel to be kind, in the right measure.
Cruel to be kind, it's a very good sign.
Cruel to be kind, means that I love you.
Baby, you gotta be cruel to be kind.

Okay, I feel better. Carry on.

Andrea --

Thanks for your comment, and also for taking the time to discuss "kind blogging" here on your site. I responded to your comment on my site, but also, i thought I'd take the time to respond here:

Understand that my second point is about making a reader's day BETTER, not necessarily "happier." Sometimes "better" just means more enlightened, more thoughtful, or whatever -- I added that point because I thought it would capture the intent of people who want to write without making their readers feel WORSE.

Does that make sense?

Anyway, the "kind blog" badge is not just about some sort of self-declaration of kindness, as much is it is (a) a declaration of the author's intent to readers (without assigning any judgment), and also (b) a way to remind the author of their own intent to attempt to be kind. I would say that anyone who places the badge on their blogs with any sort of self-righteousness is sort of missing the point.

Thanks again for your thoughts.

K.