Deep Adaptation Forum

= "an international space to connect people, online and in person, and in all spheres of life – to foster mutual support, collaboration, and professional development in the process of facing societal collapse". [1]

URL = https://www.deepadaptation.info/

Description

"It is time we considered the implications of it being too late to avert a global catastrophe in the lifetimes of people alive today. By July 2019, over half a million people had downloaded the Deep Adaptation paper on this subject, written by Professor Bendell (founder of the DAF and co-author of this proposal). As people from all walks of life awaken to this realisation, a sense of fear and unease is becoming more prevalent. As the effects of climate chaos continue to unfold, panic could bring about extreme forms of collective “othering,” even fascist responses.

The overarching mission of the DAF is to embody and enable loving responses to our predicament, so that we reduce suffering while saving more of society and the natural world.

The DAF is an international space to connect people, online and in person, and in all spheres of life – to foster mutual support, collaboration, and professional development in the process of facing societal collapse.

In service of this mission, we aim to create spaces for constructive dialogue and support community-building, while fostering a spirit of equality, mutual support and care around the breakdown of societies. We are acting on all channels available to us: online and in person; with individuals, professional communities, and institutions; on blogs, social media, and mainstream media; and we are both exploring and explaining the “why” (why we need to take action), and the “how” (ways to do this purposefully and with joy, courage and compassion, regardless of what the future brings).

Given that the implication of societal breakdown or collapse is such an all-encompassing agenda, and not something that anyone can claim much experience or expertise on, we have not followed the typical route of identifying a specific professional or stakeholder group to serve. Instead, we are responding to the rapidly increasing concern about the risks of climate-induced societal breakdown and Deep Adaptation by channeling it into networks of peer support. This is leading to projects that we would not necessarily have imagined at the outset.

Almost a year after its launch, the associated social networks of the Deep Adaptation Forum convene as many as 15,000 participants, with five paid freelancers and over fifty volunteers, supporting a wide range of activities, located around the world.

The Facebook and LinkedIn groups provide spaces for mutual emotional support and professional outreach, from which people join the Professions’ Network if they want to commit to collaborate with others to contribute to the creation of professional resources, such as new guides, databases, trainings, advisory services and so on. Affiliated Groups are in-person and online communities, aligned with the principles wider DA movement, with specific foci such as themes (parenting, practical preparedness, or countries/regions).

The plan is for the DAF never to charge fees for participation, so its overheads need to be carefully considered. It is currently funded with small private donations, with sufficient resources to support the existing human and IT resources until July 2021.

Our approach to enabling emergence is informed by research into networks, and extensive experience amongst core team members and volunteers in leadership for sustainability, community building, participatory planning, as well as our attention to the values we wish to promote as we face likely breakdown or collapse of societies. We are seeking to enable connection, dialogue, and generative collaboration, rather than just information sharing. We are supporting free-of-charge, open-minded, open-hearted, cross-disciplinary, multi-local, and personal (i.e. including video and in-person) interaction. Our aim is not to build a large institution. Instead, we believe that within a few years each profession in each country could have their own groups and initiatives on aspects of promoting readiness for societal breakdown and Deep Adaptation. In addition, communities around the world will have their own initiatives to cope better with a breakdown in their normal way of life.

We have been working with the support of small grants and volunteers. Given more support, we have a chance to reach a critical mass, and make Deep Adaptation blossom into a genuine social movement with impacts reaching far and wide, beyond borders, cultures, and social classes. We have the opportunity to become a catalyst for peace and positive transformation in an increasingly fragmented world."

(https://www.deepadaptation.info/about/)

Discussion: The Censorship / Modernation Conflict

==The Palestine Censorship Debate--

• The post on the issue of censoring discussion of Palestine and recommendations on that: Our Humanity Dictates that the Collapse of Other Societies Matters to Us – including Palestine

DAF was created by Jem Bendell, then let go of it, due to the censorship of the topic of Palestine,

Here is one of his interventions:

Jem Bendell:

"I was pleased to see wide international support for improvements on this matter, including many people who have played key roles in the DA movement worldwide, including DAF itself. More information on what you can do to help follows at the end of this email.

After the moderators of the main Deep Adaptation Facebook group did not provide me with a complaints process and said they considered the matter closed, my public commentary on the situation led to new information being provided to me. This new information included that there had been a dispute on this subject of Palestine between moderators over a year ago, which led to one moderator resigning from the team. That further highlights there is an issue relating to Palestine, but also the need for better processes for dispute resolution i.e. disagreements between people with a diversity of viewpoint are essential to avoid ideological blinkers - the challenge is how such disagreements are managed. I was only provided with one more example of blocking posts related to Palestine, in addition to the one from Freya that I mentioned in my original public recommendations. Therefore, it appears that the lack of engagement on this topic is not only due to the views of moderators.

I was informed that the relevant DAF circles for me to engage with on this matter are the Moderators Circle, the Weavers Circle and the General Circle. The Moderators circle was not meeting at the time of my complaint and recommendations. I am pleased to hear that it is now meeting, and is working on a complaints/appeals process to support moderators of various online groups connected to DAF.

I have not been told by anyone on behalf of any relevant DAF circle, that any of the recommendations, now endorsed by yourself amongst 338 people, are being considered. I have not received any response to those recommendations. After a month, I was asked if I would discuss the issues with the Weavers Circle, and agreed, but they have not followed that up. In addition, I have not had any reply from the General Circle or the Deep Adaptation Facebook Moderators to my letter of May 13th, where I provided substantial detail on this matter.

The response of the Weavers Circle, as indicated by the minutes of their meetings and email to me, demonstrated that they consider the main issue here to be the emotional wellbeing of the moderators of the DA Facebook group. Therefore, the existence of public criticism was the focus of their attention rather than its substance. This appears to me to ignore the absence of a complaints process, my asking moderators for that, and that the Moderators Circle was not even meeting/existing at the time.

The DA Facebook Group moderators blocked a post that linked to my complaint and recommendations, and instead accepted a post that did not link to my post, which led to a lot of misinformed discussion. The moderators then issued a public statement about this matter in the group which misinformed members in a few ways, including with the claim there was never a ‘blanket ban’ despite their own words to that effect, sent to Freya and quoted in my post on April 28th.

Since my complaint, there have been some posts mentioning Palestine. The way that the moderators consider the issue can be raised appropriately is open to question. For instance, I have not seen anything similar to my post (which was blocked), where I recommended we try to normalise discussion in our shared public spaces about what we can do to reduce help, or at least reduce our complicity in the harm. I did that to invite people beyond exasperation and into grounded action - something I considered the core of the DA approach to societal collapse.

The ownership of the DA Facebook Group is currently unclear. I established the group in early 2019 and gave it to DAF in 2020. It was promoted by the DAF as the easiest way to engage, and the moderators were supported by people working for DAF, paid for by charitable funds, through The Schumacher Institute. Some people involved now claim that the Facebook Group is not owned by DAF anymore. Without any formal process of divestment of that asset, then DAF and its charitable fiscal sponsor would be in breach of relevant laws in the UK. I asked for clarity on this from Weavers, as well as the Facebook moderators - requests which have gone unanswered for many weeks.

Due to the misinformed discussions about this matter occurring in public online spaces, both amongst people involved, as well as active participants looking on, I feel it is my duty to share the relevant correspondence for those who wish to look deeper. Therefore the emails between myself, the moderators and the Weavers Circle can be found here. I say ‘duty’ because I regard this issue to not be about me or the people corresponding with me, but how DAF can be suited for its role as a hub and catalyst in an international movement on positive responses to societal collapse. Any discussion on that question of what DAF is and isn’t today should be open to anyone interested and where they can be properly informed if they so choose - and the correspondence on this matter is part of that.

Unfortunately one of the DA Facebook Moderators resigned soon after my public complaint and recommendations. Stuart Smith did a great job over many years and it was a pleasure working with him on the Deep Adaptation Q&As. Unfortunately that means two moderators I was told disagreed with the blocking of content of Palestine have now quit the moderation team. In addition, I was told the moderators refused offers of very experienced moderators to join their team after this dispute arose. Therefore, many people remain concerned about the wellbeing, capacity, transparency, and accountability of remaining moderators. I wrote in my initial public complaint and recommendations that I am not seeking any individuals to change roles, but that systems need to be better for the DA Facebook Group to serve its role as a key hub in a global movement.

Some of the commentary on my actions has been exaggerated and misleading. By making one complaint about something, for the first time in years, I am not challenging the existence of DAF, nor assuming that I have power over DAF, nor ignoring the valuable contribution of many volunteers over many years. Public requests for basic transparency, sufficient capacity, accountability and complaints processes, are not threats to the wellbeing of volunteers or participants. I regard any responses which focus on a critic to the exclusion of the substance of the criticism, as helping to undermine social dialogue and potential action against genocide, whether or not that effect is intended.

In order to allow time for them to discuss issues, I told the Weavers Circle that I would wait until the end of June before any further public commentary on this matter. As you have now read, there is little positive to report on at this time. Therefore, I will wait another month before public commentary. In the meantime, I am sharing this information with the people who endorsed the recommendations i.e. you. I will also share this email with the relevant groups in DAF, as an update, and with the hope for attention to the substance of my complaint and to our recommendations to them.

This matter arises and continues while intentionally-caused huge suffering and murder of innocent people is being funded, supplied, and obscured by the countries that many of us call home. We aren’t disconnected from that, even if we choose to think we are. That can create great anger and sorrow. But such emotions don’t validate us or necessarily lead us into ‘right action’. Instead, it is important to do the work of identifying what is ours to do. In my case, I know that continuing to report on this process will create some further antagonism towards me. However, amidst that, there will be people who will do the right thing, and there will be the opportunity for better understanding and action."

Proposed Recommendation by Jem Bendell

In light of past censorship of commentary on the conflict in Gaza in the main Deep Adaptation Facebook Group, we ask the convening circle of the DA Forum to:

1) immediately direct the moderators to stop censoring the topic of Palestine and Israel

2) investigate the extent of censorship and report on it publicly

3) create more transparency, by instigating a new system for moderators to list on a public space the links or commentary they are blocking from the group (e.g. a public googledoc)

4) clarify with the moderators the broad spectrum of content that can be posted, including non party political commentary on matters of political or cultural dispute;

5) work with the moderators to rapidly achieve a more racially and religiously diverse moderation team for the main DA FB group

6) regard this an opportunity for learning about improving systems and supporting volunteers, rather than commentary on the beliefs or characteristics of individuals involved in this disagreement

7) communicate this response to all other DA online space moderators and invite discussion if there is disagreement"

Document: The Correspondence Released by Jem Bendell

Correspondence between Professor Jem Bendell (founder of the Deep Adaptation concept and movement) and the Deep Adaptation Facebook Group Moderators and members of the DAF Weavers Circle.

Why share this?

Due to the misinformed discussions about this matter occurring in public online spaces, both amongst people involved, as well as active participants looking on, I feel it is my duty to share the relevant correspondence for those who wish to look deeper. Therefore the emails between myself, the moderators and the Weavers Circle can be found here. I say ‘duty’ because I regard this issue to not be about me or the people corresponding with me, but how DAF can be suited for its role as a hub and catalyst in an international movement on positive responses to societal collapse. Any discussion on that question of what DAF is and isn’t today should be open to anyone interested and where they can be properly informed if they so choose - and the correspondence on this matter is part of that.

The following text begins with an email sent by Jem Bendell on May 13th, which includes previous correspondence. After that, the email responses between Weavers and Bendell are shown. Email addresses have been removed.

Letter to members of the Weavers Circle and General Circle of the Deep Adaptation Forum and the moderators of the main Deep Adaptation Facebook Group.

1

From Jem Bendell, Founder of the Deep Adaptation movement and the Deep Adaptation Forum. May 13th 2025,

Dear members of the Weavers Circle and General Circle of the Deep Adaptation Forum and the moderators of the main Deep Adaptation Facebook Group,

I write to:

(1) provide the information I collated on the moderation practices of the DA FB group, as a basis for re-stating some recommendations for improved practices

(2) request that some members of DAF’s relevant circles discontinue their illogical criticism of me and instead focus on collating the relevant information

(3) to correct some misrepresentations in the moderators’ public statement

(4) share some thoughts on the aims of DA Forum

Due to the variety of issues that have arisen that are besides the matter of allowing the Deep Adaptation community to discover and discuss its common concerns about Palestine, genocide, international law, and possible innovative responses, the email is unfortunately quite long. I share it with yourselves alone and would welcome a response from either or both General Circle and Weavers Circle. I also request it be shared with members of the reconstituted Moderators Circle.

Before the end of June (2025) I will write to update all those who provided their names to support my recommendations, as well as post about this matter on my blog. At that point I will make this email public, as well as the responses from the Circles that engage me, and from the moderators of the main DA Facebook group. Perhaps we will have reached a common position by then.

(1) Provide the information I collated on the moderation practices of the DA FB group, as a basis for re-stating some recommendations for improved practices

339 people have thus far endorsed the suggestions I drafted for improving the moderation practices of the Deep Adaptation Facebook (DA FB) group. As subscribers to the DA Review, they are likely members of that FB group. My reaching the subscribers was impaired by filters that put the content, unusually, into spam for about 50% of recipients (something that raised new concerns).

Although it appears that through the restructure DAF accidentally lost its role in the oversight of the moderation of the DA FB group, I am providing these suggestions to yourselves in case DAF regains a role in this regard. The suggestions cover improvements in capacity, diversity, and transparency, and are outlined in Footnote A. To confirm: before the end of June I will write to the 339 supporters about this matter. Therefore, I request a formal response to those suggestions, and to facilitate that I would be happy to discuss them, as well as the other issues arising.

The suggestions for improvements were developed prior to discovering that DAF apparently gave up its ownership and oversight of the main DA FB group as a result of its restructure in a way that may have been accidental and then inappropriately consolidated. On May 8th I wrote to the moderators to clarify this situation and their view of the ethical implications (Footnote B), but did not receive a reply. The main DA FB group is a key asset which was developed collaboratively over the years, not only by moderators, but also by the many volunteers who promoted it and the support provided by people funded by charitable donors. After founding it I handed that FB group to the DAF, not the moderators, as it was part of the DAF’s suite of tools. There is an argument, therefore, that both the community and donors should be informed about how and why it is now in private control, and what is being done to address any issues arising from that.

After the moderators didn’t provide information on a complaints process or explain how much blocking of content on Palestine had been occurring, I wanted to collate information on the latter through sending a public announcement about the situation. I received several reports of blocking of posts, but only 2 reports on the subject of Palestine. These were in addition to the situation of the blocking of Freya’s post of a Guardian article on Palestinian seed libraries back in April 2024 (as I explained in my article on the matter - quoting a moderator that “talking about Palestine/Israel here is just a hornet’s nest and doesn’t further the conversation about Deep Adaptation.”). This evidence indicates there might have been very few posts to the main DA FB group on subjects involving Palestine. That appears to corroborate what the moderators state in the DA FB group on May 8th. It would have been helpful if moderators had responded substantively to my private question about the extent of post refusals, to offset concern born of the quote, above, which indicated a blanket ban.

The most relevant report was about a dispute within the moderation team itself. I quote from the submitted answer: In late 2023, “I permitted a post about authoritarianism which led to discussions on Israel and Palestine - this led to a heated exchange with another moderator at the conclusion of which I resigned my moderation and admin post.” That a dispute within the moderation team on whether to allow any discussion of Palestine would then lead to loss of both moderation capacity and diversity of views is clearly not ideal.

In this case, it was Kat Soares who left the moderation team, and, if then handing over the ownership of the group (not just her admin status) to one of the remaining moderators, this dispute over Palestine was how the main DA FB group could become totally independent of DAF if the moderators chose. That suggests this matter of censorship of Palestine conversations was central to a non-transparent and non-authorised separation of the DA FB group from the DAF. If DAF and DA FB moderators wish to review this occurrence, then the interactions may still exist in the moderators’ own page for internal discussions. I consider it important to look into, not only for the reasons mentioned above. In addition, it raises questions of authenticity: if private processes involving differing ideological positions are sometimes more decisive than the public deliberative governance processes of DAF, that would undermine confidence in whether those laudable DAF processes are truly how the initiative is run.

I believe current and future moderators of DAF would be better supported by being back within the context of DAF and being given advice on how to moderate, how to refer people who complain to a formal deliberative process, and how to recruit new moderators and to take time off moderating to rest for periods of time. That is how it was meant to function in the past. Perhaps that might have meant Stuart Smith did not leave the moderation team as a result of disagreements about this issue. I am disappointed about that, and made it clear in my complaint that I did not want to see any volunteers quit, but to see processes and capacity improve.

(2) Request that some members of DAF’s relevant circles discontinue their illogical and damaging criticism of me and instead focus on collating the relevant information

Some DAF Circle participants may have been enabling criticism of me for ‘not using internal complaints’ processes despite:

i) The responsibility to tell someone who has had their initial complaint rejected that there is a formal process to use to complain should be with the volunteers or staff (as it used to be, and is normal ethical and professional practice within any organisation). The moderators didn't respond to my request for that, reasserted their authority in making their decision and claimed the matter is closed. I made that situation clear in my article on this matter and also evidenced it by providing the relevant email correspondence to the Weavers Circle and General Circle. See Footnote C.

ii) There appears to be no internal complaints process with authority regarding the DA FB group. That is because, since the restructure the moderators had considered themselves separate from DAF. They have communicated that view to others in the DAF circles.

Some people have implied there is DAF authority over the main DA FB group in order to complain I didn’t use a (non-existent) complaints process, but then regard that DA FB group as independent so it can make its own public statements that include criticism of me without going through DAF circles (where there might be disagreements about how to respond well). Is that creativity partly inspired by a focus on ‘shooting the messenger’ rather than focusing on the issues raised?

In any case, such responses risk de-prioritising generative dialogue amongst community and movement participants on rather straightforward matters about moderation activity and normal ethical and professional conduct, as well as the extremely unusual and urgent suffering involving areas and aspects of societal collapse.

Overlooking or ignoring the basic facts (i) and (ii), above, to create a complaint about my behaviour, encourages wider criticism of me in email threads, DAF online communities, and volunteer meetings. That is undermining my reputation on the basis of absent or incorrect information, with potential consequences for my mental health, relationships, and future income.

Besides that personal situation, I am more concerned about what this means for everyone worldwide who has been contributing to DAF. To act as if there is a coherent deliberative process that has authority when in fact ownership of a unit of DAF had been taken away and is not covered by it, risks wasting volunteer time in such processes as well as misleading donors.

(3) To correct some key misrepresentations in the moderators’ public statement.

Unfortunately a post of my complaint by DAF volunteer Peter Kindfield was rejected by the DA FB group moderators, so that participants did not have easy access to my complaint prior to it being discussed on at least two other threads in the group. That led to much misinformed discussion, which involved ‘strawman’ versions of my complaint.

The response of the moderators to this issue on May 8th included many laudable sentiments and I was pleased that they confirmed they welcome content related to Palestine in future and that they need to increase moderator capacity. Unfortunately they did not include a link to my complaint and included the following misrepresentations of the situation.

They write: “After thoroughly discussing Jem’s post, we decided his submission of the Slater article was more off-topic than not, and invited it to be reframed as more DA-specific.”

The content of my post was inviting conversation in a DA way, as shown in Footnote D. I was informed by moderator Aimee Maxwell that Matthew Slater’s article would not be accepted for specific issues in the article (which I disputed). I was told to focus on my personal psychology. I quote from her email to me: “If you want to reframe your contribution as a personal reflection on how to stay ethically grounded in the face of geopolitical horror—one that invites others into shared questioning we’d welcome that.” Therefore, it is misleading to claim they “invited it to be reframed as more DA-specific.” That statement is used to preface their complaint about my subsequent actions, to give the impression mine were unreasonable actions. They made no mention that I asked them for a complaints process and they ignored that and said the matter was closed.

They write; “There has been no “blanket ban” or systematic suppression of the topic of Palestine in this group. Two instances were identified in the past 18 months where posts on Palestine or Gaza were refused. A third post was removed due to disturbing comments against the group’s rules of kindness, curiosity and respect.” The evidence of a blanket ban came from Aimee Maxwell’s own message to Freya about why her post was refused in April 2024, and which I provided to the moderators and also included in my public complaint: “talking about Palestine/Israel here is just a hornet’s nest and doesn’t further the conversation about Deep Adaptation.” In order to dispel my concern, I asked the moderators to inform me how much content mentioning Palestine had been refused. However, they ignored that request and said that the matter is closed. My decision to find out how much blocking of content there might have been was because of them not providing information on that despite their statement to Freya.

They write: “the risk is genuine that Meta can kill this group off with no recourse if it doesn’t meet their ‘community standards’”. That is an important issue and currently relates to how we go about discussing topics made controversial by incumbent power, not about whether a topic can be discussed at all. It raises issues of moderator capacity to observe a conversation, and so perhaps a capacity issue that needs addressing. My post of Matthew Slater’s article has not led to any sanctions from Facebook that I am aware of.

Because of these misrepresentations on what I did and wrote, which allow or enable negative criticism of me, I will share publicly my correspondence with the moderators, verbatim (Footnote E), when I provide a public update. I realise that is unlikely to be read, and the damage is already being done to my reputation. My patience about that is because I know this issue isn’t primarily about me or yourselves - it is about the health of the dialogue and related initiatives as well as the people who suffer the most. Although it is secondary, if members of DAF circles consider the May 8th Open Letter from moderators to be inadequately explaining our disagreement in ways that allow or enable negative criticism of me as a person, then I’d welcome some public commentary on that.

(4) Share some thoughts on the aims of DA Forum

When I founded the DA Forum, I wrote a statement of intent for it: “to embody and enable loving responses to our predicament, so that we reduce suffering while saving more of society and the natural world.” That is contained in a number of documents. It does not constitute an organisational vision, mission or strategy, but a broad indication of intent. I worked with many volunteers to discover what participants wanted the Forum to focus on, which we reported on here in 2020. When I left the forum I recommended a similar process be done every couple of years.

From the public video of the meeting of the General Circle in March 2025, there appeared to be a lack of understanding that the statement of intent is not a vision or mission. In addition, the statement was truncated in discussions to merely “embody and enable loving responses.” Even if the “so that..” part would be ditched, then it is still impossible to be loving towards a concept called “the predicament”. Instead, we can be loving to the humans and other sentient creatures that are experiencing that predicament. I mention this, as it means that even with a truncated version of the statement of intent, there is an outward focus, beyond the eco-anxiety and wishes of existing participants in the DAF, despite that also being important. The March meeting of the General Circle did not include any discussion of how the General Circle members might know what the interests of key volunteers, the wider participants, and the wider movement, internationally, might be. Instead, the participants mentioned what they themselves were happy with. That sounded to me that either there could be some useful training in what it means to have a governance role, or there need to be some other mechanism for that in the new DAF structure.

The conversations in the GC that I views, the minutes of the last Weavers Circle, and the potentially unauthorised handing over of an online asset of a charitable initiative to private individuals (the main DA FB group), have left me wondering where matters like compliance with both charity law and normal non-profit best practice is located in the new DAF structure, given that the fiscal sponsor for the DAF is the charitably registered Schumacher Institute. Previously the DAF Holding Group had people with specific expertise and responsibility in that area.

If the DAF has evolved to no longer be aiming at the original statement of intent that I mentioned above, then that is a reality I accept, despite it not being my preference. However, if it continues to claim that it is more than it is, then that can act as an impediment to other initiatives. My hope was that DAF would be a catalyst within a movement, yet it risks being a suppressant of such a movement if it is displacing the possibility of such catalysts occurring elsewhere. In any discussions of the purpose of DAF, I recommend considering the deeper cultural and psychological issues that can be associated with a narrowing of its focus. I shared some thoughts on that in a recent speech: The Magic of the Metacrisis – Prof Jem Bendell

This issue of the purpose of DAF is important as it influences how people respond to the issue of allowing (or even supporting) discussion of aspects and areas of collapse, such as the current situation in Palestine. It also influences the cultural assumptions and habits of DAF volunteers i.e. if they begin to regard DAF activities as being about the emotional self care of participants rather than a wider range of objectives. Although the moderators of the DA FB group are currently regarding themselves as separate from DAF, if it was under the DAF umbrella then this issue matters. If it is not under the DAF umbrella, then we need to know clearly what the moderators consider the remit of the DA FB group to be, and DAF needs to express an opinion on that, at a minimum.

I recognise the passion for the existing DAF and wider community and movement that leads a General Circle member to ask me not to “tear it down because it doesn’t satisfy your vision of what it should be.” However, I do not regard it as damaging to discuss, either internally or externally, any perceived failings in processes. Instead a community and movement can benefit from public disagreements, transparency and accountability. Also, I've demonstrated for years that I'm supportive of participants working out together what they do with DAF - but I know that requires open communications between participants, and that is disrupted if there are non-transparent filters on our awareness of what each other thinks (e.g. an unknown moderation policy) due to personal bias of one or two people, or if responding to criticism by demonising the critic.

Conclusion

My current view may be mistaken and I am open to it being corrected. I also realise my current view may feel uncomfortable for some of you. But in the interests of understanding each other, here are my current conclusions… There may have been one mistake after another in the various DAF systems that compounded an initial problem. For instance, the first mistake might have been to stop the support for the DA FB group moderators that was provided in the early days of DAF, which included guidance on time served, help for recruitment of new moderators, specialist training for the moderators, and suchlike. A second mistake might have been the argument between two moderators over Palestine over a year ago leading to one moderator quitting, control being handed over, and no inquiry and dialogue about this situation and how to manage disagreements better. And so on, and on. Lovely and capable people who are doing really helpful things can also make mistakes, just like you and me. But when mistakes compound the previous ones, then it points to a potential issue with organisational culture. There is not much one can do about that apart from welcoming dissent, attempting the identification of ‘group think’ and actively seeking people from different life experiences to engage more and gain personally from their greater participation.

In the last few days I have resuscitated the DA Groups FB Group, which was previously used to help communication between moderators of the many smaller and autonomous DA FB groups. I will await our future consultations before retiring it, or handing it to a relevant DAF circle or, perhaps, developing it further with colleagues.

Apart from yourselves, the only people I will share this message with at this time are Freya (as she provided key info and quit the DA movement due to this issue) and Wendy (as a senior volunteer who has been vocal in the DA FB group with criticism of me which, I believe, is based on her not having the full information). I'll make this message public when I offer a summary before the end of June. I hope I have some positive news to share on the substance of my dispute. If any of you wish to share this email with others, please feel free to do so. A link to the text of the email is here.

Sadly it is likely the mass killing of civilians via dehydration, starvation and disease will have unfolded over the coming month, with the backing of politicians and companies in the countries most of us are from. Although the issues I’ve covered in this email are important, I am disheartened if this enables the decentering of discussions on how we might help the people who are suffering in Palestine. I also wonder what would have happened with our own efforts if we had conversations over the past year about:

- helping DA participants who had travelled to West Bank to help deescalation (eg Ben Yeger, who even trained the mods a few years ago, paid for by charitable funds from DAF)

- organising to pressure our employers to not require us to use the services of firms that allegedly facilitate genocide (e.g. Israel is making me drop Microsoft, what about you?)

- organising amongst the many DA folks with recent XR and JSO experience about NVDA directed at the financiers and profiteers of the genocide and other conflicts

- supporting the anti-genocide activists within Israel and promoting international awareness that they exist, to help reduce anti-semitism elsewhere

- and whatever else the amazing folks in our communities and movement might suggest! "

More information

Join the community space, if you haven't already, and ask for engagement on this matter. https://community.deepadaptation.info/login

Express your opinions in the DA Facebook group, in a civil and constructive manner: https://www.facebook.com/groups/deepadaptation

Email your thoughts to both [email protected] or any members of the Weavers Circle (especially if you know them): https://www.deepadaptation.info/weavers-circle/