Everyone has self-interests that drive their positions on any issue and those self-interests are different for everyone. We form groups based on the majority of commonality. The Constitution calls this Freedom of Association. You can't have freedom of association without freedom to not associate. I do not see the Democrat or the Republican parties letting people join their caucuses who are antithetical to their party platforms.
ESMB as a political party.
That's a unique proposal!
I have never been on Alanzo's Blog and don't intend to but dollars to donuts if I went there and started bad rapping him and everyone there for Being Tribalist and blindly biased and not really having sensible opinions based on their experiences I suspect that there would be some kind of Communication Control put into effect on me and it would probably be very appropriate because at some point being missioned to reeducate people in their own home isn't discussion it is being inconsiderate.
You've never been to my blog but you already know what would happen?
How do you know what would happen if you've never been to my blog?
People aren't perfect. We expect that people we admire and respect have done things or do things that we may not agree with but we make our allegiances on the net worth that we recognize. It is a valid argument to point out their inconsistencies but again at some point you are telling people that this balancing of the scales that they have done to confirm their allegiance regardless of the negatives is misguided Tribalism and invalid bias.
Or mere trolling.
Another word for this is politics. By trying to portray these people as Leaders you denigrate our own ability to make our own choices.
Then stop all this rah rah cheerleading and prove that you have the moral courage to think for yourself: Apply pointed questioning and critical thinking
publicly to the statements of Mike Rinder, Karen De La Carriere, Tony Ortega, et al - just like you do to me.
We may support each person for different reasons and we may not support them for other reasons. We may not even consider them as Leaders but then again our failure to recognize or acknowledge that they are our leaders is defined as blind following and more signs of Tribal bias.
This whole well-written essay of yours is a pitch to make ESMB into something similar to a political party. By definition, political parties have monolithic views and are tribal. Aren't you tacitly proposing blocking people from membership on ESMB if their views do not conform to what
you see as the monolithic views of ESMB?
For people who need a fixed target to destroy to win their argument it is important that there be "Leaders". This is like telling us we are incapable of thinking that doesn't require the reeducation that only the self-anointed definers of Tribes and bias can provide.
Human beings are a tribal species. Not understanding this fundamental aspect of being human is what stuck you, and me, in Scientology for so long.
And this also stuck me in the self-destructive beliefs of anti-scientology for way too long, too.
If you are so capable of thinking for yourself, as I'm pretty sure you are, why are you playing Debbie Wassermann Schultz here and trying to make ESMB into something kin to a monolithic political party, locking out all dissent? If you are so capable of thinking for yourself, and so is every one else on ESMB, shouldn't you welcome dissent without degrading it as some kind of threatening Marxist insurgency?
Or mere trolling, as others here are?
If your ideas win out, then they should be the best ones, right?
