[Mecca]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

This going to TOUCH on something that could be called broadly 'political' but is more psychological, and has been bugging me for so long here that it needs to be said I need to say it, even if people misinterpret it and b& me. And I would add, if this post bothers folks as over the line, I'd ask that they give me an oportunity to rephrase or retract, as I'm not trying to make a partisan point, but an important philosophical and strategic one.

I'm going to try to express it succinctly, so I apologize if it abridges some nuances, . . . but we live in a free society with inalienable rights, so it seems that all this energy devoted to shaming and belittling people into conceding their rights are an illusion would be better devoted to persuading people that their rights should be momentarily lended to an extraordinary circumstance.

And part of that is being brutally honest about the best and worst case scenarios as well as the reasons why they are still speculative.

Maybe it's just my psychological makeup, but I realize a lot of the merits of various narratives, but I also see the pitfalls and/or uncertainties being downplayed or hidden. But even if one were absolutely convinced of a plan of action, I don't understand why they don't work harder to persuade instead of snark and belittlement [even if they're getting it back].

When seeking behavior from another person, you can either persuade [with reasoning or enticement or flattery, or whatever] or you can force with whatever heft and muscle you can muster.

If the end goal is unified response, it seems far better to say 'this is why it's important, and here's what it might cost, and we're not sure it can work but it's our best effort' than 'this is the way it is, and if you have questions stop being stupid and listen and obey.'

Snark and belittlement is how people communicate now with anyone that doesn't think the same as them...social media is a big part of that.