what I have found is that initially we all make assumptions,and it takes actual conversation to clear up those assumptions.
I have made the mistake of not differentiating clearly ideologue from humor.you,and some other nice people,have set me straight.
but the common thread is an implied respect,even if the initial interaction was maybe less-than-respectful.if I am wrong,or reading too much into something,and someone calls me out.
I will concede and apologize,if warranted.
but if it is a constant barrage of disrespect,presumption,bombastic insults and it is all coming from a single ideological origin.
then I will match tone for tone.
disagreeing with me is fine,even welcomed.
but if your sole goal is to "win" or strawman my position just to inflate your own ego.
you are going to have a bad time with me.
because I will take that to such a dark level that I leave peoples tender sensibilities a bloody mess.
my goal is rarely to "win".
my goal is to understand,and sometimes that takes some prodding,a little poking to get to the core of the issue,so that core can be examined.
to a normal person,this tactic may be annoying,but we all benefit from the results,and I would like to think that,for the most part,i am respectful.
an ideologue does not approach things the same way.
they are already convinced.
and if I challenge them,then I have signaled I am the "enemy" and therefore must be eradicated in order for them to clutch their precious ideology.
they always approach debate with the single goal of proving their ideology the "right" and "correct" ideology.
and in my opinion,this is intellectual cancer,and I see both the extreme right and extreme left engage in this twisted mentality.
so there is a method to my madness,and there is a purpose.
*I realize you didn't ask me about all that,but I figured I would throw it in for context.
Caption this Meme
