Freedom of Speech, Rich Men of Reach

I hate this so much because I didn’t write it.

I have an honest question for the pack?

Have you ever caught yourself arguing against something you really believe in? Or for something you are (were) really against. Such is the power of the narratives and the tribes (what a great description).

How can I be with team blue on that issue when I am such a rock solid member of team red?

Crazy.

Really nice note about free thinking. My philosophy is such that I lend weight to credentials first and then with critical thinking deassemble the POV of the originator.

In this case I barely know these 2 individuals because they are being promoted from people of a narrative while holding a position of ignorance- what does a proud Alapachian woods person know about elite paedeophillia rings that his songs should be given some sort of political weight? While I applaud Greta’s ability to be brave in an adult-centric world and shout her misgivings, why do I have to believe she knows what she is talking about having not had any qualifications to make any scientific claims about the state of the world?- crass to be so dismissive but the point is that their identity don’t lend credence.

So what lends credence if you don’t have credentials? Maybe just the words themselves if they resonate. In which case I think your point about “enjoying dancing to the beat of their song” important because that enjoyment should originate from resonance and not because of groupthink. I’m not sure based on the characterisation of the Oliver being MAGA centric I’d enjoy his songs for their content, but I’d empathise with the disillusionment and share similar distrust that he probably does. While I don’t agree with Greta’s militant stance of can’t fly at all, it’s not like I don’t think there isn’t a problem in overconsumption and in offloading the carbon debt to your progeny.

Key thing there is that my viewpoints didn’t originate from these two and I can agree/disagree with both regardless.

Good note, one of many. I think that you’ve helped make me immune, because all I see in those two is a couple of braying jackasses.

You know, the two of you have been making a lot of us feel this way for years now.

I’d like to give Rusty’s comment a Super-Duper Like ™ !

Nope, not at you anyway, and your note is one of the many reasons I subscribe.
It also helps to have been a member of the purple tribe for some years (or maybe it’s more like red and blue stripes, dunno).

Never, at least not in the four decades since I’ve been an adult.
Obviously attorneys should not answer this question as it is commonly a part of their job description.

Hello all,
Great to have this group. Something must be wrong ( or working) as I am a true team blue but Ben is not triggering me. I definitely see both sides on this and previous issues (Enabled vs civil war) and can understand what is being said and the power of that language to capture us. However, I do not see the two sides intentions as equal. Obviously as I see one as enabling and that is not the same as pushing a civil war narrative. The intended outcomes are not the same. One is quite reversible and the other is not.

Maybe I’m overstepping but I don’t think Ben’s saying the viewpoints are equivalent, they are very dissimilar.

He also doesn’t think they were executed to the same degree of skill or scope (“piker”).

But I think he is arguing that they were both equally as manufactured; In that a few talking heads decided to co-ordinate and push these two individuals and let them rise in prominence for an agenda and that these individuals were uniquely suited for identity politics:

They chose a photogenic girl with a disability to be the figurehead so that any criticism could be dismissed as “discrimination against disability” or any complaint against the messaging of a WASP looking MAGA guy to be the target of a “deep state conspiracy against the average downtrodden white male living in the Alapachian mountains.”