How to ignore Speak2Truth (and other users)

[Barry]

We have a "guest" on the board at the moment whose username is Speak2Truth. He has a right-wing orientation. He went on a posting rampage yesterday in our discussion areas. So far, I have chosen not to ban him but I have asked him to throttle back at a minimum. I'm also on vacation an hope to be largely offline tomorrow.

If you would like to ignore (hide) his posts (or of any other user), here's how:

From the digest
go to any of his posts and click on his username:

This will take you to his user profile on the website:

Click on Add to Ignore List. This will ask you to confirm it:

Click Yes and you are set!

From individual emails from his posts
click on the website/reply button to take you to his post. Then follow below.

From one of his posts on the website
Put your mouse over his username:

A very handy profile snapshot appears! Click on Ignore and confirm as above.

[Speak2Truth]

I post in these forums in the spirit that Barry intended for these forums to be used. That is, I quote:

Witness
Cultivating an awareness that is separate from your ego that can just observe exactly "what is".

Truth
Again, this goes to "what is" and is the basis of being authentic.

Open hearted/Undefended
To be emotionally available and compassionate while not easily going into a defensive/resistive posture.

Respect
To honor everybody and their truths, even if you disagree with them. This is that attribute that I most staunchly try to uphold here. Without respecting each other, then it's not safe. And if it's not safe, it's more difficult to be open and compassionate.

I'm sorry that people become emotional and defensive when I'm presenting information to help cultivate awareness. I respect those who present counter-arguments with informational backing in hopes of showing me that I've got something wrong. I am here to learn.

For the few who choose the other course, I respect your desire to exclude from your consciousness the information I present. To each his own.

Peace

[Dixon]

Barry, although I strongly disagree with most of what Speak2Truth says, I would like to register my objection to your singling him out for ignoring and asking him to "throttle back at a minimum". As far as I can see, he's not behaving as a troll, just expressing opinions that are unpopular in this community (a position I'm not unfamiliar with myself). This is both a freedom of expression issue and a tolerance issue.

[Star Man]

Barry, although I strongly disagree with most of what Speak2Truth says, I would like to register my objection to your singling him out for ignoring and asking him to "throttle back at a minimum". As far as I can see, he's not behaving as a troll, just expressing opinions that are unpopular in this community (a position I'm not unfamiliar with myself). This is both a freedom of expression issue and a tolerance issue.

Dixon, in California we have the legal means to deal with crazy people. It's called 5150. If someone is a danger to themselves or to others. Crazy people standing in the street verbally threatening saner citizens, talking incoherently, waving their arms wildly, and demonstrating incoherent and disorganized thought patterns are placed in an involuntary 3 day hold while being assessed by psychiatrists. If the crazy person's status is serious enough, he or she can be conserved and in the most severe cases the person can be placed in a locked mental institution under guard.
This is not a free speech issue. This is protecting sane society from the threats of an insane person. Placing Speak2Truth "on report" and letting him know that further breaches of acceptable public mental behavior will cause him to be kicked off the list is the WaccoBB equivalent of a 5150. I support Barry in this action. While I have disagreed with you, Dixon, on occasion, I have never thought of you as a Troll or as crazy.

Star Man

[Speak2Truth]

Wow, Star Man, that was such a loving and compassionate, respectful and aware response, I must extend my full love and respect to you!

Okay, turning off the facetiousness.

You are demonstrating exactly what Barry said should not be present in this community, per his own guidelines that I presented above. Don't you believe in the community values?

If you feel anything I say is untrue, feel free to present your evidence and show where I've got it wrong. As I said, I'm here to compare information and viewpoints to learn more about what is Truth and what is not.

Are you?

[Shandi]

Dixon, in California we have the legal means to deal with crazy people. It's called 5150. If someone is a danger to themselves or to others. Crazy people standing in the street verbally threatening saner citizens, talking incoherently, waving their arms wildly, and demonstrating incoherent and disorganized thought patterns are placed in an involuntary 3 day hold while being assessed by psychiatrists. If the crazy person's status is serious enough, he or she can be conserved and in the most severe cases the person can be placed in a locked mental institution under guard.
This is not a free speech issue. This is protecting sane society from the threats of an insane person. Placing Speak2Truth "on report" and letting him know that further breaches of acceptable public mental behavior will cause him to be kicked off the list is the WaccoBB equivalent of a 5150. I support Barry in this action. While I have disagreed with you, Dixon, on occasion, I have never thought of you as a Troll or as crazy.

Star Man

Thinking that someone is "crazy" is only an opinion, until proven otherwise. And who among us doesn't get a little "crazy"
at times. Do you really think that anyone, even a troll, expressing his or her opinion (truth) is a danger to him/herself and
the Wacco community? It's comforting to know that you don't "think" of Dixon as crazy, but some may disagree with you.
(Not me, I really enjoy his thoughtful posts, and hope he publishes them in a book someday.)

It reminds me of when I used to go to Black's Beach in So. Cal. It was a nude beach enjoyed by many, and you had to really
want to experience that freedom by climbing down a steep embankment, which provided privacy, unless people came to the
edge to look down at us. Those people used to complain about our nudity, when all they had to do was "not look". But
that's not as satisfying, as looking/reading, and "judging", and trying to get us arrested. Talk about "crazy" behavior.
"I hate what they do, it's so indecent, but I'll look anyway" Reminds me of our growing list of congressmen who've been
busted for being "anti" whatever, and doing the very act that they're against.

I think that those who are "offended" by anyone's posts have an inalienable right, to "ignore" or "respond".

And just because something is "LEGAL" doesn't mean it's just. If someone can be imprisoned for smoking a natural
herb, I don't believe much in the justice of the LEGAL SYSTEM, and I'd be willing to bet that all of us have broken the
LAW in one way or another. and have somehow avoided the "punishment" by not getting caught. Even you, STARMAN!
When we take a public stand, we expose ourselves to people who know of our past actions, in addition being willing to accept criticism and different points of view.

I applaud anyone who's willing to take any kind of stand in this community, even though it may be "unpopular". This is
about FREE SPEACH, unless it's blatantly "harmful". That doesn't mean "offensive" to someone. Because people get
offended by all sorts of things, as evidenced by the postings.

Should all "offenders" be banned? Good-bye..... Wacco!

[Shandi]

I post in these forums in the spirit that Barry intended for these forums to be used. That is, I quote:



I'm sorry that people become emotional and defensive when I'm presenting information to help cultivate awareness. I respect those who present counter-arguments with informational backing in hopes of showing me that I've got something wrong. I am here to learn.

For the few who choose the other course, I respect your desire to exclude from your consciousness the information I present. To each his own.

Peace

RE:
Witness
Cultivating an awareness that is separate from your ego that can just observe exactly "what is".

Truth
Again, this goes to "what is" and is the basis of being authentic.

Open hearted/Undefended
To be emotionally available and compassionate while not easily going into a defensive/resistive posture.

Respect
To honor everybody and their truths, even if you disagree with them. This is that attribute that I most staunchly try to uphold here. Without respecting each other, then it's not safe. And if it's not safe, it's more difficult to be open and compassionate.


"Witness"
Most posts that I've read, and that's a small sampling, are rarely "separate from ego that can observe exactly "what is".
Our realities of "what is" is based on our perceptions. Is it "cold" or "hot"? Depends on who's reporting.

"Truth"....again a matter of perception. Maybe this could be listed more appropriately as "Our Truth".

"Open hearted/Undefended" Sounds good, but look at "what is" in many posts. My perception..

"Respect" It would be wonderful to use this as a guideline. I'm not sure what "safe" means on this BB, unless it's
a direct threat, which I've seen recently, and not by "SpeaktoTruth", but a non-member. If I was Barry, I would not
let this person join, and ban them from the board.

While I applaud Barry's guidelines, all we have to do is look at a few posts to see that they get violated all the
time. Policing an online community is a tough job, but if anyone can do it, Barry can! I urge readers to "report"
posts that violate these guidelines, so we can become more aware, and tultimately have a more evolved Wacco community
as Barry must have had in mind originally.

[Dixon]

Shandi, thanks for your kind words. For the record, although Star Man's words were addressed to me, I wasn't the one he was calling crazy; it was Speak2Truth.

Star Man, you don't have to educate me about 5150s. Having worked in mental health for years, I've dealt with many people who were on 5150 status (or other types of legal holds). But that's not relevant to the Speak2Truth issue, because 1. There's no reason to believe that he's imminently dangerous to himself or others, or gravely disabled due to a mental disorder, and 2. There's no good reason I can see to believe that he's even, as you say, "crazy" (psychotic). From what I've seen, he shows no sign of bizarre delusions (in the clinical sense--not the same as mistaken beliefs), hallucinations, mental disorganization, or any other signs of psychosis. The closest I can come to agreeing with you about his being crazy is to acknowledge that his world-view is self-righteous and single-minded in a way that's often seen in paranoia, but not much more than yours or mine, and his posts come nowhere near giving us any reason to make a mental health diagnosis.

If you mean "crazy" in a colloquial sense rather than a clinical sense, that just means you judge his ideas as irrational, and are apparently so upset by them that you'd like to justify shutting him up and perhaps slap him around with a bit of name calling too. The rational response to your judgment that his ideas are irrational is to logically refute them (or, failing to do so, admit that he may be right about some things). Just calling him crazy and endorsing shutting him up is not a constructive response. If you've ever been on the receiving end of that sort of treatment, think about how it felt. (I too am bothered by many of his ideas, but haven't found the time to address them at any length yet.)

One more thing: Even if he were psychotic, that wouldn't mean that everything he says is wrong, anymore than being sane means everything we say is right. Each claim needs to be addressed on the basis of its own merits/demerits, regardless of who makes the claim. If you haven't the time or inclination to do that, fine, but calling him crazy is not helpful.

[Speak2Truth]

So, this forum had a brief visit from someone who is not a conformist, someone who is willing to explore information to see where it leads rather than toe a particular ideological line. The reactions to that have been both heartwarming and saddening.

Some people cannot tolerate opinions or information that contradicts their opinions and resort to accusations of insanity, personal attacks, threats to silence the differing opinionator and active silencing of the person who strayed from the officially allowed set of opinions. I leave it up to you to put a label on this response, as I might be accused of speaking politically by doing so.

Others have recognized that the information presented contradicts their beliefs and have, or have not, taken the time to debate the information presented. However, they have maintained a mature, tolerant and even welcoming attitude, the very best that humans can offer one another in a world where no two humans can possibly agree on everything.

It is by the former group that great horrors have been inflicted upon other humans, for their intolerance of those who disagree with them, combined with power to act on it, have been a hallmark of the worst abuses of humans against one another throughout history.

It is the latter group, by embracing peace, love and tolerance, who help humanity reach for a better future. They acknowledge that they may not be correct about everything and the person with whom they disagree may not be correct about everything, and that by freely expressing one's beliefs and evidence to support those beliefs we may find common ground or at least a better understanding of one another. It is because they value another human being that they are the very best sorts we want in positions of power, for they would not abuse another especially on something so trivial as mere points of disagreement.

Think. Care. Peace.

[Clancy]

So, this forum had a brief visit from someone who is not a conformist...

Speaking of conformists, your self-defined victimhood was as predictable as the rest of your heartless, warmongering, extremely conformist RW screed and sleazy corporate-apologist tactics.

[Barry]

So, this forum had a brief visit from someone who is not a conformist,someone who is willing to explore information to see where it leads rather than toe a particular ideological line.

I wonder who he can be referring to? Surely not himself.

Putting forth an "alternative" set of ideas/values is one thing. But saying that's not what you are doing is dishonest.

[Shandi]

Shandi, thanks for your kind words. For the record, although Star Man's words were addressed to me, I wasn't the one he was calling crazy; it was Speak2Truth.

Star Man, you don't have to educate me about 5150s. Having worked in mental health for years, I've dealt with many people who were on 5150 status (or other types of legal holds). But that's not relevant to the Speak2Truth issue, because 1. There's no reason to believe that he's imminently dangerous to himself or others, or gravely disabled due to a mental disorder, and 2. There's no good reason I can see to believe that he's even, as you say, "crazy" (psychotic). From what I've seen, he shows no sign of bizarre delusions (in the clinical sense--not the same as mistaken beliefs), hallucinations, mental disorganization, or any other signs of psychosis. The closest I can come to agreeing with you about his being crazy is to acknowledge that his world-view is self-righteous and single-minded in a way that's often seen in paranoia, but not much more than yours or mine, and his posts come nowhere near giving us any reason to make a mental health diagnosis.

If you mean "crazy" in a colloquial sense rather than a clinical sense, that just means you judge his ideas as irrational, and are apparently so upset by them that you'd like to justify shutting him up and perhaps slap him around with a bit of name calling too. The rational response to your judgment that his ideas are irrational is to logically refute them (or, failing to do so, admit that he may be right about some things). Just calling him crazy and endorsing shutting him up is not a constructive response. If you've ever been on the receiving end of that sort of treatment, think about how it felt. (I too am bothered by many of his ideas, but haven't found the time to address them at any length yet.)

One more thing: Even if he were psychotic, that wouldn't mean that everything he says is wrong, anymore than being sane means everything we say is right. Each claim needs to be addressed on the basis of its own merits/demerits, regardless of who makes the claim. If you haven't the time or inclination to do that, fine, but calling him crazy is not helpful.

Dixon, I did mean my response for StarMan....I think Sometimes these discussion make me feel a little "crazy".
I enjoy reading your responses to many things, but unfortunately I've also missed a lot of them, that's why I was wishing
for your book!

Have you eve done any studies of DeBono's work?

[Shandi]

Speaking of conformists, your self-defined victimhood was as predictable as the rest of your heartless, warmongering, extremely conformist RW screed and sleazy corporate-apologist tactics.

HUH????? Wow that's mouthful! I missed those parts....could you point me to them?

[Star Man]

Oh, Dixon! I totally hear that you have had years of experience in the mental health field. What I'm wondering is how much experience you had with Borderline Personality Disorder? I am speaking as a lay person in this regard. The information is available to anyone willing to read the relevant section in the DSM-IV. You appear to believe that refuting Speak2Truth's arguments would mollify him, maybe even convince him. When you suggest that, you are really failing to understand that this individual may be personality disordered. His goal is to create chaos. My sense is that he probably came from a very chaotic childhood environment, and that interpersonal chaos is the form of relating that he has internalized. Persons with Borderline features have extreme attachment dysregulation. They were abandoned and betrayed in relationships beginning at birth. They often endorse the anxious-ambivalent form of insecure attachment, or their adult attachment style may be disorganized-disoriented if their primary caregivers were frightening or frightened. My sense is that people like Speak had the Primal Wound "We hate you!" broadcast at them. This is also what such people internalized, and it is what they broadcast at others. They take extreme positions and create chaos among an audience so that they will be hated, because that is what they were raised with.

The reason, Dixon and Shandi, that I suggested Speak be treated as mentally disordered was to develop the perspective among Progressives that not all positions are valid or worthy of refutation. The Borderlines want nothing more than to engage sane people in "dialogue," that is, a conversation that is crazy-making. Shandi, I hope you read this. The world of politics is filled with mentally disordered people. We Progressives have for a long time tried to deal with mentally disordered political commentators by arguing with them and attempting to refute their "arguments." The political Borderlines flourish in such an environment. Take Hitler. It was only after WW II that psychologists began to look at his Narcissistic Personality Disorder. No one called McCarthy crazy. A drunk, yes, but not mentally ill, yet is Paranoid Personality Disorder was evident even then. Beck is another good example. Glenn Beck's thought process is thoroughly disordered. So is the thought process of Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, and all of the Fox News (sic) team.

The sad and truly frightening reality is that these mentally disordered people resonate with about 25% of the American population. The Taliban are a mirror image of these fanatics. They all (including the Taliban) suffer from what psychologists are now referring to as Developmental Trauma Disorder, meaning that the neglect and trauma they experienced in childhood affect the formation of their personalities. Most inmates suffer from Developmental Trauma Disorder. If Hannity, Beck, O'Reilly, Coulter, et al., didn't have TV shows, they might well be incarcerated or institutionalized.

Star Man

[Clancy]

HUH????? Wow that's mouthful! I missed those parts....could you point me to them?

Virtually all of his positions and opinions are repeated ad naseum on RW blogs, bulletin boards, 'news' sources and talk radio, all day, every day. Try watching Fox News or listen to Rush Limbaugh for a few days and you'll see what I mean. There's even forums where they teach each other to do what he's been doing here. For an eye-opening experience, check out Free Republic
https://www.freerepublic.com/home.htm

His evasive tactics are repeated in forums like this, all over the internet, and I simply don't care enough to explain how it works. I'm sorry I even got involved.

[Shandi]

Oh, Dixon! I totally hear that you have had years of experience in the mental health field. What I'm wondering is how much experience you had with Borderline Personality Disorder? I am speaking as a lay person in this regard. The information is available to anyone willing to read the relevant section in the DSM-IV. You appear to believe that refuting Speak2Truth's arguments would mollify him, maybe even convince him.
When you suggest that, you are really failing to understand that this individual may be personality disordered. His goal is to create chaos. My sense is that he probably came from a very chaotic childhood environment, and that interpersonal chaos is the form of relating that he has internalized. Persons with Borderline features have extreme attachment dysregulation. They were abandoned and betrayed in relationships beginning at birth. They often endorse the anxious-ambivalent form of insecure attachment, or their adult attachment style may be disorganized-disoriented if their primary caregivers were frightening or frightened. My sense is that people like Speak had the Primal Wound "We hate you!" broadcast at them. This is also what such people internalized, and it is what they broadcast at others. They take extreme positions and create chaos among an audience so that they will be hated, because that is what they were raised with.
The reason, Dixon and Shandi, that I suggested Speak be treated as mentally disordered was to develop the perspective among Progressives that not all positions are valid or worthy of refutation. The Borderlines want nothing more than to engage sane people in "dialogue," that is, a conversation that is crazy-making. Shandi, I hope you read this. The world of politics is filled with mentally disordered people. We Progressives have for a long time tried to deal with mentally disordered political commentators by arguing with them and attempting to refute their "arguments." The political Borderlines flourish in such an environment. Take Hitler. It was only after WW II that psychologists began to look at his Narcissistic Personality Disorder. No one called McCarthy crazy. A drunk, yes, but not mentally ill, yet is Paranoid Personality Disorder was evident even then. Beck is another good example. Glenn Beck's thought process is thoroughly disordered. So is the thought process of Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, and all of the Fox News (sic) team.

The sad and truly frightening reality is that these mentally disordered people resonate with about 25% of the American population. The Taliban are a mirror image of these fanatics. They all (including the Taliban) suffer from what psychologists are now referring to as Developmental Trauma Disorder, meaning that the neglect and trauma they experienced in childhood affect the formation of their personalities. Most inmates suffer from Developmental Trauma Disorder. If Hannity, Beck, O'Reilly, Coulter, et al., didn't have TV shows, they might well be incarcerated or institutionalized.

Star Man

Assuming that you know what someone believes is dangerous.. When you start out saying "You APPEAR to believe", rather than just asking Dixon what he believes, that's a red flag for me. Then you go on to say "you are really failing to understand" another red flag phrase. And then you profess to know that his (Speak's) goal is to create chaos.

Although I haven't read all of Speak's posts, and some may even be as you indicate. The solution is such an easy one,
but one you're overlooking.....the one Barry reminded us of.....the IGNORE button. Have you considered that? It truly is a
wonderful feature, and Barry's trying to make sure that people know they can use it.

No one can engage anyone in conversation if the other party isn't willing to engage. Obviously he's got you hooked!!!! Why?
I believe that all positions are valid, even yours. "Crazy" doesn't equal "invalid". Ever feel that way (a little crazy) yourself?
People are more important than our amateur diagnosis. You don't have to engage....but it seems that something is
compelling you. What could that be?

I believe that the world itself, in particular our culture, (since that's where we are at the moment) is filled with mentally disordered people who fill all sorts of positions. All I have to do is go out my door, and I will encounter them everywhere.

How many people on this BB can say they came from a well adjusted, loving family? It's always inspiring to hear such
stories, since they are pretty rare. Just because we came from dysfunctional families, doesn't mean we

At the moment I'm in the midst of a family situation where the person I was in relationship with claimed to have a family
that was like "Father Knows Best" or "The Brady Bunch". Something wasn't clear about that picture, although at their
family gatherings, everyone was smiling, there was never any arguing or unkind words. But my partner was always depressed
and suicidal, except for when he was on drugs.

None of the siblings communicated much, no phone calls, emails, etc. No birthday greetings, etc. Although when they got
together they were all smiles and politeness. Their father had been a POW, but his experience was never revealed to any
of them, even the mother. He died of lung cancer, a few years ago, but had never smoked. None of them were smokers or
drinkers. One of them, my previous partner, got into drugs in a serious way in his 50's.

The family dynamics was a mystery to me, until I was recently called upon to care for the mother. Now, I began to see that this sweet, loving, stay at home mom, had instilled in her family, the need to keep things on a light note. And in order to
avoid any real communication, the kids ate home cooked meals in front of the TV. She kept things swept under the rug,
until now that she's turning 84. All kinds of things have been revealed to me, unknowingly. So, at this point, I know more
than any individual in the family.

Looking at a picture I took of them several years ago, they all look so sweet and "sane", but even when I took the picture, I could see the invisible dysfunction.

My point in sharing all this is that a great number of us, myself included, have come through a traumatic, abusive childhood.
Ever read the story of "Dibs"? People can get through this, many unfortunately can't . I know nothing of anyone's childhood
on this BB, unless they've revealed it.

How would you like to suggest that you be treated by Wacco members? How do you see yourself, and how would you like
to be seen, from your posts?

You're really putting yourself out there (as a lay person at that) when you categorize a person from their posts, and a look at the DSM-IV.

Your words reveal so much....keep talking. I'm listening....and I do agree with some of your final perceptions.

[Shandi]

Virtually all of his positions and opinions are repeated ad naseum on RW blogs, bulletin boards, 'news' sources and talk radio, all day, every day. Try watching Fox News or listen to Rush Limbaugh for a few days and you'll see what I mean. There's even forums where they teach each other to do what he's been doing here. For an eye-opening experience, check out Free Republic
https://www.freerepublic.com/home.htm

His evasive tactics are repeated in forums like this, all over the internet, and I simply don't care enough to explain how it works. I'm sorry I even got involved.

So, get uninvolved!!! Speak2Truth must be very satisfied if what many people are saying about him is TRUTH.
And to think, that we (the SANE ones) have contributed to this. We should be proud of ourselves!!!

[Dixon]

I enjoy reading your responses to many things...

Thanks again for your kind words.

...but unfortunately I've also missed a lot of them, that's why I was wishing for your book!

Hopefully some day I'll collect the essays I'm publishing monthly here on Wacco under the rubric "The Gospel According to Dixon" into book form. If you like my writing, you might want to check out those essays (if you haven't already). Also, if you put your cursor over the "Dixon" under my photo, you'll find a link to a list of all my posts of the last few years, and you can peruse those for your enjoyment. I've occasionally done that with Wacco ranters I found interesting (either in a positive or negative way).

Have you eve done any studies of DeBono's work?

Nope. I don't even know who he/she is.

[Speak2Truth]

Guys guys guys...

If you believe something I'm posting is "crazy", provide evidence to at least show it is untrue. Why is it several posters keep repeating that "he's crazy" mantra while never, ever stepping into the discussion to support that claim? Labeling is useless. Prove it.

I have never listened to Rush Limbaugh and I don't get TV. Had Dish Network for a while, decided it was lame. So, if you think I'm saying things that you have seen elsewhere (you DO watch FOX and listen to Limbaugh, right? Otherwise you could not make that claim) then okay. That's fine. However, I'll provide source information for almost any claim I'm making. I've been doing this all along, especially when asked.

Conversation is easy. If you think something is untrue, just say, "Could you provide some sources on that? I'd like to see where you got that idea."

It's easy. Try it.

Barry, if you think I'm not following the information to seek reasonable conclusions, you need only ask me for linked evidence to support what I'm saying. I'll gladly oblige.

[podfish]

So, this forum had a brief visit from someone who is not a conformist, someone who is willing to explore information to see where it leads rather than toe a particular ideological line.

such visits are actually common here - and some residents fit that category too. There may not be a strong spectrum of political philosophies represented here, but that's not the same thing.

Some people cannot tolerate opinions or information that contradicts their opinions and resort to accusations of insanity, personal attacks, threats to silence the differing opinionator and active silencing of the person who strayed from the officially allowed set of opinions..

that's unfortunate when it happens. It's fair to read some of the responses here that way. However, there are a lot of others that point out problems with many of your assertions. Many have explained why they don't find your sources credible, and directly challenged the talking points that are right-wing media boilerplate. You never acknowledge that the alternatives might have merit and you might be wrong. Some of the data in your posts is credible, and some of the ideas are even correct. You're not getting a response to those. Once in a while you've gotten a "good point" reaction too. But so much of it is raw ideologically driven nonsense that it muddies the the rest of it.

[Speak2Truth]

Many have explained why they don't find your sources credible, and directly challenged the talking points that are right-wing media boilerplate.

Are you talking about the knee-jerk reaction when I referenced a link to Natural Wrongs - Natural Rights, and the response was rants that the site had links to FOX news articles and such? That was their effort to claim the source was not credible. I'm still laughing about this - their claims that I am repeating FOX and Limbaugh (which I don't watch) implies THAT THEY DO. Otherwise, how could they make such a claim?

LOL!!

They completely dodged the content of that article by invoking their "hate" mantra against FOX and Limbaugh. How silly. I thought the content of the article was meritorious.

[Dixon]

Oh, Dixon! I totally hear that you have had years of experience in the mental health field. What I'm wondering is how much experience you had with Borderline Personality Disorder?

Thanks for asking. I've had too much experience with Borderline Personality Disordered folks! Borderlines are about the least popular mental health clients to work with, because their ability to relate to others is so impaired that having some kind of constructive relationship with them can be hellish, what with all the manipulations, drama, etc.

I am speaking as a lay person in this regard.

Clearly.

The information is available to anyone willing to read the relevant section in the DSM-IV.

I read the previous edition, the DSM-III, from cover to cover. With all due respect, Star Man, I know more about mental illness and personality disorders than you do, and I've not yet seen any reason to diagnose Speak2Truth with any mental disorder, regardless of how annoying you or I may find him.

You appear to believe that refuting Speak2Truth's arguments would mollify him, maybe even convince him. When you suggest that, you are really failing to understand that this individual may be personality disordered. His goal is to create chaos. My sense is that he probably came from a very chaotic childhood environment, and that interpersonal chaos is the form of relating that he has internalized. Persons with Borderline features have extreme attachment dysregulation. They were abandoned and betrayed in relationships beginning at birth. They often endorse the anxious-ambivalent form of insecure attachment, or their adult attachment style may be disorganized-disoriented if their primary caregivers were frightening or frightened. My sense is that people like Speak had the Primal Wound "We hate you!" broadcast at them. This is also what such people internalized, and it is what they broadcast at others. They take extreme positions and create chaos among an audience so that they will be hated, because that is what they were raised with.

Star Man, you waste a lot of breath describing Borderline Personality Disorder and someone's theories about what causes it, but you haven't given us any reason to believe that's relevant to this discussion because, as far as I can see, there's zero reason to believe that S2T is a Borderline. I could be wrong, and would be happy to have you compare his behavior to the DSM diagnostic criteria and show that he really does have Borderline Personality, but keep in mind that your unfounded negative assumptions about his motivations ("His goal is to create chaos") don't constitute evidence of a disorder on his part.

You went on to preach to us about how we should just ignore right-wingers because you apparently feel that most or all of them are mentally disordered in ways that render reasoning with them pointless. I agree that reasoning generally doesn't get through to people, but my observation (supported by research, I believe, though I don't have references at hand) is that most people, of whatever political stripe, are pretty closed-minded, not just right-wingers. Do you imagine for a second that the average Wacco New Ager could be disabused of his/her belief in, say, astrology any more readily than S2T could be disabused of his favorite beliefs?

I see no evidence of mental disorder in either S2T or you (not yet, anyway), but I will "diagnose" your logic in this discussion: So far it has been one example after another of the elementary logical fallacy known as the ad hominem attack (which, as you may know, involves evading the issues under discussion by engaging in personal attacks instead). You called him crazy, then a Borderline, and on another thread, a troll. If you don't have the time or desire to discuss the issues with him, fine, but calling him names is not a constructive nor rational response. As for me, I'll continue to try to reason with those I disagree with (though I haven't yet found the time to address most of his numerous posts), just in case it can do some good sometimes.

[Dixon]

One more thing, Star Man (and many of you)--

We call ourselves Progressives, and many call this a "conscious community", but this business of launching ad hominem attacks and refusing to dialogue with those whose expressed opinions piss us off is not a "conscious" nor progressive way of dealing with anything. Ironically, it's probably exactly what Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh would do if confronted with your beliefs--call you crazy, call you a troll, ignore your attempts at discussion, and censor you. The repressive tendencies we see in the right-wingers are, to some degree, our projection of our own darkness onto them--just as they do to us.

"We have met the enemy and he is us."
--Walt Kelly

[Iolchan]

By all means do dialog - but "Rebuke" also, "with all long-suffering and doctrine," as St. Paul said. In today's language, and in our secular context, "doctrine" translates into "references" - internet citations - equal and opposite to the ones that Speak2Truth supplies from the ample stockpile of Limbovian propaganda.

The man - whoever he is - occasionally does score a point or two that is valid. I have to re-iterate that I do agree with him on the issue of Affirmative Action - specifically, as it has sometimes been applied to proactive discrimination against "white" males at the Employment Office.

[Speak2Truth]

By all means do dialog - but "Rebuke" also, "with all long-suffering and doctrine," as St. Paul said. In today's language, and in our secular context, "doctrine" translates into "references" - internet citations - equal and opposite to the ones that Speak2Truth supplies from the ample stockpile of Limbovian propaganda.

Uhh.. what the heck is "Limbovian Propaganda"?

I tried to look this one up and what I came up with is:

The Republic of Limbovia
https://www.nationstates.net/nation=limbovia

I'm pretty darned sure I'm not quoting their propaganda. I'd never even heard of them before a couple of minutes ago.

[Speak2Truth]

You went on to preach to us about how we should just ignore right-wingers because you apparently feel that most or all of them are mentally disordered in ways that render reasoning with them pointless. I agree that reasoning generally doesn't get through to people, but my observation (supported by research, I believe, though I don't have references at hand) is that most people, of whatever political stripe, are pretty closed-minded, not just right-wingers.

I do have the research at hand.

Democrats and Republicans Both Adept at Ignoring Facts, Study Finds
Brain bias, resulting from ideological indoctrination, shuts down processing of contradictory information
https://www.livescience.com/strangen...decisions.html

This is what I strive to overcome by researching source material and showing people how they've been tricked, programmed with bias and had their emotions turned into a bulwark against fact and reason. Some people respond to the demonstrated facts in a reasonable manner, others do not. The research above explains the mechanism behind that.

[Shandi]

I do have the research at hand.

Democrats and Republicans Both Adept at Ignoring Facts, Study Finds
Brain bias, resulting from ideological indoctrination, shuts down processing of contradictory information
https://www.livescience.com/strangen...decisions.html

This is what I strive to overcome by researching source material and showing people how they've been tricked, programmed with bias and had their emotions turned into a bulwark against fact and reason. Some people respond to the demonstrated facts in a reasonable manner, others do not. The research above explains the mechanism behind that.

I was under the impression that all programming (indoctrination) is biased; how could it not be?
Demonstrated facts can also be skewed by the researcher, (or some facts left out), for purposes of
persuading others toward a particular conclusion.

That's why when I read about controversial topics, I like to check out who's doing the research and reporting
of the facts, and how they might benefit. It seems difficult to present facts when there's a vested interest.

It seems that your interest is just to inform people of the information you have gathered, so they can
judge for themselves. And you know from your research that the information you present may be rejected or
ignored. But not being attached to those responses is a wise position.