07-26-2021, 11:19 AM
(07-26-2021, 01:35 AM)Relax Wrote: It's because I don't want to argue that I expressed myself with silliness/humour, getting to vent about some viewpoints that I find frankly medieval in their superstitious/paranoid tone. ...
I didn't see myself as sarcastic - but as 'poking fun'... probably amounts to the same tho I guess...
Thank you for clarifying your intent.
(07-26-2021, 01:35 AM)Relax Wrote: It is an issue how our intent comes across in written words with no in-person cues. I myself have worked hard on being clear and still I fail up all the time.
Why do I have to treat ideas that (to me and so many people) are quite crazy - with any normal deferential. serious response?
My answer to that would be that everyone is entitled to their opinion and how can anyone claim the only one right way to view things?
I don't want to argue the merits of either side of this issue as I am not on a side as I said, and I can understand that from certain points of view a "conspiracy" perspective can appear crazy. But this can be a very narrow view. And there is so much confusion here in this density, I think a lot of latitude might be given people in order to stretch their perceptions and include thinking that goes beyond official narratives. One of the problems with this thread I see is that I don't think "conspiracy" ideas are negating empirical science—the issue isn't science but agendas that go beyond or may control it.
The least we can do is be respectful, in my opinion, especially with the understanding that in a complicated situation there may be more than one way to approach or view it. Nonviolent communication comes to mind.