Cancel Culture

This is a question I'm asking because I am genuinely curious. Why is cancel culture growing? For those who don't know, cancel culture is, from my understanding, where someone has dirt dug up on them, such as the whole James Charles allegations of him trying to convert straight males, which I believe was proven false, and thus said entity becomes "canceled". I ask this, because I watch someone by the name of Tim Pool. Recently he attended an after party for an event, not sure the specifics but it was centrists and libertarians, and there were people harassing the location and/or sending phone calls to the brewery calling them "fringe far righters" as Tim put it. Why is this considered okay? You see, Tim asked some of the people why they didn't stand up and say "Enough", and while he didn't say each person had the same reason, he did speculate it's because the activists are threatening violence, and that they are scared as a result. Hell there is a Chik-fil-a on a college campus that a group wants shut down for fear of safety. Huh? In addition, San Antonion Airport BANNED Chik-fil-a for donations to religious organizations. I'm not saying it's right or wrong to do that, but why is it seemingly okay for Google to donate to politicians then? So my question, again, is why is this okay in today's age?

Because cancelling someone or something is a form of shame, one of the greatest motivators to change behavior.

Because people are bigots and want others to think like them.. and will try to destroy your livelyhood just for being different.. it's cultural warfare..

Steam: But when does it reach the point of too far? I, personally, think calling a brewery can calling them far right for simply hosting an after party which consisted of centrists and libertarians and harassing them, making other business afraid of violence, too far and too illogical given how mundane the "issue" is in this scenario. Now an example where it was more appropriate would be ProJared before his recent video where he "had receipts", given he had no foothold before that video.

Uzima: I agree which is why I hate the media for only showing the extreme ends of things. Most people, from my perspective, are normal people but the media favors the views from the extreme sides.

Deimos wrote: This is a question I'm asking because I am genuinely curious. Why is cancel culture growing? For those who don't know, cancel culture is, from my understanding, where someone has dirt dug up on them, such as the whole James Charles allegations of him trying to convert straight males, which I believe was proven false, and thus said entity becomes "canceled". I ask this, because I watch someone by the name of Tim Pool. Recently he attended an after party for an event, not sure the specifics but it was centrists and libertarians, and there were people harassing the location and/or sending phone calls to the brewery calling them "fringe far righters" as Tim put it. Why is this considered okay? You see, Tim asked some of the people why they didn't stand up and say "Enough", and while he didn't say each person had the same reason, he did speculate it's because the activists are threatening violence, and that they are scared as a result. Hell there is a Chik-fil-a on a college campus that a group wants shut down for fear of safety. Huh? In addition, San Antonion Airport BANNED Chik-fil-a for donations to religious organizations. I'm not saying it's right or wrong to do that, but why is it seemingly okay for Google to donate to politicians then? So my question, again, is why is this okay in today's age?

So I meant to sound off on this a little earlier. So, this isn't really a new phenomenon, nor is it exclusive to any section of society. So in order to see what I am saying let's look back to the 60' and 70's . Rock and Roll saw a lot of resistance from the "Moral Majority". People protested to have rock and roll shut down. Now, this did have some national spread but the majority of the groups acted independently fed off information from more localized news sources. So, what is the difference between this type of cultural change resistance and what's happening now?

Well I have a few theories that in action together make some sense to me. 1. Information is abound these days, there is a lot of business in clicks, views, and subscriptions. How do you draw people in, shock them, do it by showing the worst of the worst of these individuals and equate them with the normal person involved in any situation. That way every story is shocking and people stay glued to the information you are putting out.

2. People communicate much more regularly on a global level, so for example a situation that may happen in one state and be properly resolved through rule of law can be explained to a wide audience, however, to get global clicks you are going to spread the one's that were not. It's always what is being shown (note, I used shown for a reason, because there are in fact editorial choices made), people used to rage on Fox for it when CNN was centrist information based. This leads me into my next one.

3. The "subtle" editorial approach taken by most media outlets. I mean that simply put if you ever watch new on the TV (or videos, and papers) these days they like to do something I have heard termed as "News Analysis". To me when I am looking for information I just want the information to make my own opinion. However, there is always a point of view, this is natural. What is not natural is that this is literally the only way news is reported now (local stories do not tend to have this quality, read about your school board in the local paper to check.) Another issue with the "news analysis" is that we have now established shows that don't say what they think about the information but literally tell you the information is this. So, we get an extra layer of editorial view skew, often times this serves to dehumanize people,(in the early 2000's Fox was notorious for this) because of what is left out. It creates echo chambers in mass media, so you have six people, 2 "experts" saying the same thing based on the same study instead of a large variety of studies. So I think a good question to ask any news report you watch is, what is being left out? And why is it being left out?

4. We are too busy fighting each other to care about collateral damage by delayed corrections, omissions, or a non-confirmed source. So, then when something like Chick-a-Filet happens. The actual support for the Anti-LGBT came from 2 individual employees, this was corrected after the first release of this information about 3 months later.(one a middle manager, and another a lower level executive.) that put money to this organization. When people got justifiably pissed instead of assuming this is the individuals' who donates opinion it must be the company. The company refused to budge on allowing their employees to speak their mind (the donating individuals) via money (as we all have the right to do) and so it was assumed they support the opinion as a company. It didn't help Chick-a-Filet that the are an corporation whose that's roots are christian based, so the observe Sunday off ECT, This gave the optic that they must absolutely be in support. So, the conclusion is easy to draw and pass on. Now as somebody who worked for a major corporation, they do not care about morality, they care about making money. It is literally the only reason they exist, and it is counter intuitive to alienate potential customers. So, they don't, it is individuals that make it look that way. That said if we are going to fire or hold a company/business responsible for every employee's views, it will continue to escalate based on any chain of communication or information that reaches different groups.

5. Political based boycotts don't work because the other 50% will just hop on the buy it to make the other-side mad, so what's the next step if that doesn't work? Appeal to law. that's what is happening to Chick-a-Filet in the scenario you mentioned. Now, when appeal to law is not sound it also doesn't work (I personally believe you cannot legislate morality, it just doesn't work and hasn't worked....ever.) So if you can't appeal to law, then well what do you do? This is where the violence and threats come in IMHO.

Now these are just some ideas as to why this is a current cultural phenomenon. Now as for the event in your last comment, I mean Daryll Davis was supposed to be there. The African American responsible for deescalating many Klan Members from that view point so why it was attacked seems like a case of targeted ignorance, because a few controversial figures were included in the event's line up (because it was designed to get multiple people with many views to speak to each other and debate on the merit of their ideas) and this caused people to see it a spreading hate. Hate is also a 2 way street. I abhor violence at this point in my life, I have just had enough. The thing is it gets clicks so it's every where and it's got everyone (both sides of the current political climate) think they are literally fighting Nazis (there are very very few actual Nazis and I think we all agree that they should be rebuked). This is the importance of open discussion though, it makes us make a connection with a person and then have the grounds and ability to refute their views. The thing is with the shaming ideal though is more popular though, it's easier, and you do not have to make a connection and see a person not just an opinion. By doing this you do not connect to the suffering you also cause by carrying though on said individuals. Sadly this idea accidentally only emboldens the opposing views because well people like to troll IRL and online, and people see the need to defend themselves and since they are now tied to one individual opinion they now have to defend that opinion even if they don't fully support it.

I personally enjoyed reading a lot about societal shifts in history like the French Revolution, The Russian Revolution and the Chinese Revolution. So, these are just some observations and ideas on this based on that knowledge from college. Sorry for the essay but this is a big question.

People protesting for freedom in Hong Kong were waving Trump and American flags, are they Nazis (because of the trump flags?) or were they making an appeal to a society that has much more freedom of speech than they do? Is shaming them appropriate?

But, what do you guys think?

Much Love, Respect and Peace
Kobos

I told myself that I wasn't going to get involved, BUT, I think you could benefit from a suggestion or two, and some actual further information.

So... I'm going to start by suggesting you make friends with "Google", if for no other reason than being a little better informed on a subject if you insist on a discussion.

Case in point: I think you should research "chik fil a controversy", because the issue is not merely a matter of donating to religious organizations, in itself.

Next suggestion: Yes, the mainstream media loves to be sensational- that industry decided it wanted to be an entertainment medium a long time ago, and we're coming to realize why that is a problem. It is also a very different thing than the parts of the OP that prompted that observation. If that's what you actually had in mind, than the OP is a little confusing.

Next suggestion: framing. Were threats actually made, or was this another instance of people FEELING threatened by the mere presence of people who are willing to criticize/disagree with them? The latter has been going around, lately, particularly among conservative figures. Avoid using suggestion to incorrectly frame something a certain way, even on accident. This also ties back to my first suggestion- speculation is a poor substitute for being informed.

Final suggestion: don't represent things as similar/the same unless they actually are. Demonstrators showing up and delivering their message is not violence, with rare exception.

And try to avoid these issues in the same post wherein you admit to having formed opinions on an issue while not actually understanding the issue (again, by your own admittance).

Kelrax Lorcken wrote: I told myself that I wasn't going to get involved, BUT, I think you could benefit from a suggestion or two, and some actual further information.

So... I'm going to start by suggesting you make friends with "Google", if for no other reason than being a little better informed on a subject if you insist on a discussion.

Case in point: I think you should research "chik fil a controversy", because the issue is not merely a matter of donating to religious organizations, in itself.

Next suggestion: Yes, the mainstream media loves to be sensational- that industry decided it wanted to be an entertainment medium a long time ago, and we're coming to realize why that is a problem. It is also a very different thing than the parts of the OP that prompted that observation. If that's what you actually had in mind, than the OP is a little confusing.

Next suggestion: framing. Were threats actually made, or was this another instance of people FEELING threatened by the mere presence of people who are willing to criticize/disagree with them? The latter has been going around, lately, particularly among conservative figures. Avoid using suggestion to incorrectly frame something a certain way, even on accident. This also ties back to my first suggestion- speculation is a poor substitute for being informed.

Final suggestion: don't represent things as similar/the same unless they actually are. Demonstrators showing up and delivering their message is not violence, with rare exception.

And try to avoid these issues in the same post wherein you admit to having formed opinions on an issue while not actually understanding the issue (again, by your own admittance).

I would ask you for your source on the Chik-a-Filet situation I would be more than happy to check it out if there is other information. Also, I was simply trying to theorize on the question the OP asked, why is this more idea more prevalent today?

As for the situation and threats, you can check out the video covering the threats here, :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NN7Yk6qWjY

Second I do have IMHO a decently informed opinion (that doesn't mean I am right), I purposely tried not to touch on issues because I am trying to discuss the actual phenomenon now being presented as "cancel culture". The reasons as for why are separate from the issues, making one in the same doesn't address the culture it just loops back to discussing the issues instead of the OP's question again IMHO.

One of my points is that the violence is rare (we agree on that), but is it not true that because of the rare there is a drive to judge quickly based off these limited instances?

Much Love, Respect and Peace,
Kobos

Kobos wrote:

Kelrax Lorcken wrote: I told myself that I wasn't going to get involved, BUT, I think you could benefit from a suggestion or two, and some actual further information.

So... I'm going to start by suggesting you make friends with "Google", if for no other reason than being a little better informed on a subject if you insist on a discussion.

Case in point: I think you should research "chik fil a controversy", because the issue is not merely a matter of donating to religious organizations, in itself.

Next suggestion: Yes, the mainstream media loves to be sensational- that industry decided it wanted to be an entertainment medium a long time ago, and we're coming to realize why that is a problem. It is also a very different thing than the parts of the OP that prompted that observation. If that's what you actually had in mind, than the OP is a little confusing.

Next suggestion: framing. Were threats actually made, or was this another instance of people FEELING threatened by the mere presence of people who are willing to criticize/disagree with them? The latter has been going around, lately, particularly among conservative figures. Avoid using suggestion to incorrectly frame something a certain way, even on accident. This also ties back to my first suggestion- speculation is a poor substitute for being informed.

Final suggestion: don't represent things as similar/the same unless they actually are. Demonstrators showing up and delivering their message is not violence, with rare exception.

And try to avoid these issues in the same post wherein you admit to having formed opinions on an issue while not actually understanding the issue (again, by your own admittance).

I would ask you for your source on the Chik-a-Filet situation I would be more than happy to check it out if there is other information. Also, I was simply trying to theorize on the question the OP asked, why is this more idea more prevalent today?

As for the situation and threats, you can check out the video covering the threats here, :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NN7Yk6qWjY

Second I do have IMHO a decently informed opinion (that doesn't mean I am right), I purposely tried not to touch on issues because I am trying to discuss the actual phenomenon now being presented as "cancel culture". The reasons as for why are separate from the issues, making one in the same doesn't address the culture it just loops back to discussing the issues instead of the OP's question again IMHO.

One of my points is that the violence is rare (we agree on that), but is it not true that because of the rare there is a drive to judge quickly based off these limited instances?

Much Love, Respect and Peace,
Kobos

My post was actually directed at Deimos, I apologize for not making that clear, but I do have to appreciate the effort you put into your responses.

To answer your question on chik fil a and it's troubles, this isn't a new issue for them, and as for sources, I could cherry pick a source to share, or I could just point out that Google is free, and trust those inclined to use that to come to an informed decision. Wikipedia is a good first stop, though.

I'm not trying to make this as condescending as it sounds, the last time I was sharing link/sources I got called lazy for it. Opinions are of dubious value/merit when they are uninformed/misinformed. I'm really not trying to get drawn into the actual debate, so the less I do for the actual participants here, the better.

I've derailed the discussion, I think, and would appreciate if my posts could be removed?

I'm not a member, but I'd like to suggest not removing posts. I think we can all benefit from someone's thoughts, even if they themselves think it has come to derail or change the course of a conversation. All that does is lead to a deletion of historical records that, while might not prove to hold value in and of themselves, can serve as lessons learned for not just the people making the commentary, but also from those of us who are new and could benefit from seeing people struggle with differing and shifting opinions. Sorry for the run-on sentence there, but I'd like to see all posts, the nice and the ugly, to serve as a historical record so that all of us can learn from each other's mistakes, and maybe not repeat them? Hopefully this doesn't come across as pointless to the discussion at hand, but just wanted to throw my 2 cents in there.

Cancel culture exists because people vote with their money in some form or another. And while (for Americans) the first amendment protects free speech (which has limits) from governmental reprisal, it doesn't protect you from anything else. Businesses have the right to refuse business on any basis that isn't a protected class.

I don't know the details of any of your case studies, but none of them sound unethical at first glance.

Cancel Culture right now is due to the growing pains of living in a global society with individual or group mindsets.

It will right itself, but I believe it will get worse before it gets better

Kelrax Lorcken wrote: My post was actually directed at Deimos, I apologize for not making that clear, but I do have to appreciate the effort you put into your responses.

To answer your question on chik fil a and it's troubles, this isn't a new issue for them, and as for sources, I could cherry pick a source to share, or I could just point out that Google is free, and trust those inclined to use that to come to an informed decision. Wikipedia is a good first stop, though.

I'm not trying to make this as condescending as it sounds, the last time I was sharing link/sources I got called lazy for it. Opinions are of dubious value/merit when they are uninformed/misinformed. I'm really not trying to get drawn into the actual debate, so the less I do for the actual participants here, the better.

I apologize about taking that on the defensive. I actually appreciate your comment, I am going to look into some of the view points you shared, Do not question when you share, you did not derail the thread you added to the discussion and that is why we are all here. Solutions come from derailed threads for the record. And If I had a dollar for every thread I took off the rails I would be a richer man. Appreciate your own opinions and viewpoints(we do), but stay open minded.

Much Love, Respect and Peace,
Kobos

Cancel culture, while extreme, is nothing more than the concept of a boycott over moral and ethical issues.

I wouldn't agree that cancel culture in today's society is "okay", so much as it is more accessible than ever. Throughout history we have seen division and schisms and battles fought over opposing ideologies. Organizations and armies, whole cultures have banded together in an attempt to squash or obliterate their opposition. In this age of technology that allows quick and easy communication between the masses, it is far easier than ever to organize a group to "boycott" a product, idea, or even a group of people. The privilege of mass communication, in my opinion, is being abused when "cancel culture" runs rampant, as I personally see too often (in the real world as well as on social media.) People want to be heard, they want to be understood, they want to belong. Jumping on the bandwagon as a means of finding acceptance and belonging, pursuing power over others via a greater collective, is a tale as old as time. There is an inherent "us vs. them" mentality that for reasons I could not hope to explain has purveyed and at this point exploded.

I saw a British comedian once joke about how Americans' identity is so centered around what they hate and what they stand against that nobody in the country is actually certain of what they love or even like. Getting back to this idea of "extremes", I think it is quicker to elicit an extreme negative response than it is an extreme positive response. I think media portrayal has a lot to do with the sensationalism experienced online and in the home, and I don't think it's okay.

I believe even a single individual has the opportunity to promote, work towards, and eventually establish unity and understanding. I believe that we as Jedi have a responsibility to set the example and encourage discussion, to find alternatives to "cancelling" one thing in favor of another. Compromise isn't the quickest or easiest goal, but it is the most worthwhile (from my point of view.) I think people just need to accept that being uncomfortable is a natural part of life, and we shouldn't expect to be 100% comfortable with what everyone else wants to say or think or do 100% of the time. There are billions of other people on this planet outside ourselves, and to try and deny them what they want to say think or do because it doesn't fall in line with our own objectives is not only unfair, but I think immoral.

I have lost friends and family, I have had to limit my contact with coworkers outside our office because of this combative mentality. It drives people apart. It breaks down communication. It is counterproductive in the worst way. I hate to bring it up...but wasn't there something in "The Last Jedi" about saving what you love rather than killing what you hate? I think society as a whole needs to take a step back and look at the bigger picture, invest in the things we love rather than neglect them because we're too busy hating something.

Let's "cancel" cancel culture! lol...

Deimos wrote: This is a question I'm asking because I am genuinely curious. Why is cancel culture growing? For those who don't know, cancel culture is, from my understanding, where someone has dirt dug up on them, such as the whole James Charles allegations of him trying to convert straight males, which I believe was proven false, and thus said entity becomes "canceled". I ask this, because I watch someone by the name of Tim Pool. Recently he attended an after party for an event, not sure the specifics but it was centrists and libertarians, and there were people harassing the location and/or sending phone calls to the brewery calling them "fringe far righters" as Tim put it. Why is this considered okay? You see, Tim asked some of the people why they didn't stand up and say "Enough", and while he didn't say each person had the same reason, he did speculate it's because the activists are threatening violence, and that they are scared as a result. Hell there is a Chik-fil-a on a college campus that a group wants shut down for fear of safety. Huh? In addition, San Antonion Airport BANNED Chik-fil-a for donations to religious organizations. I'm not saying it's right or wrong to do that, but why is it seemingly okay for Google to donate to politicians then? So my question, again, is why is this okay in today's age?

Things that show results have a tendency to grow. Cancel Culture is basically a moralistic market force of capitalism. It's basically away of fighting back against someone or some organization negatively affecting others but who can be negatively impacted financially.

The thing with anything is that its relative like Goldilocks. There will be people who use it too little, too much, and people who will use it just the right amount. Fox was basically getting away with murder (metaphorically) because of the propaganda machine that was pro-alternative facts and conspiracies. It was like Fox hosts kept testing the waters to see how far they could go before someone said "woah, stop, that's racist!". And because it was a big giant corporation people found only one way to fight back; to hold them in check. And that was to call advertisers. When advertisers start dropping off there is always a chance the show will be cancelled so at the very least a lot of people have gotten suspended. And these are people who make millions of dollars a year.

So cancel culture works.

It was amazing to me to see the white nationalists parade themselves without hoods because, as its been said before, boycotting isn't new. Did they realize they could lose their jobs? I think cancelling someone goes a bit farther than just boycotting because I think its more of a lobby against that person or organization. Lobbying is how many laws get made and unmade. And it has always been based on money. It's just usually big money from donors affecting the votes of politicians. But in this case its more like a check on the donors, saying but we wont give you money if you keep supporting these people or these ideas. I think its an excellent use of democracy and capitalism. But again... its not always going to be used correctly and some people are going to get targeted who I don't think deserve it.

For example... Bill Maher is notorious for controversy. He's a comedian and a host. I've always liked him. But he expressed an opinion Rashida Talib didn't like and she called for a boycott of his show. I think that's ridiculous.

"Some people have one move only: boycott. Cancel. Make-go-away," Maher wrote, apparently echoing phrases toddlers use. "But here’s the thing, the house voted 318 to 17 to condemn the #BDS movement, including 93% of Dems. Does Tlaib want to boycott 93% of her own party?"

what he said that Talib wanted him boycotted for?

"BDS a bull---- purity test by people who want to appear woke but actually slept through history class,"

And of course he backed up that statement

https://www.foxnews.com/media/bill-maher-responds-tlaib-boycott-show

I don't fully agree with either of them but I don't think expressing a different opinion should automatically get you cancelled. I think that's going way too far. There needs to be balance. Now if the only thing that person will hear or feel is losing money then yes... But if you just don't like what someone said and don't feel like engaging them in debate, then no.

My issue is when it crosses that line of being a personal choice (however informed it may or may not be) to societal or legal pressure.. usually harming people who've done no harm to others..

But I don't think it's happening without purpose or by accident. News Media could very well deescalate these type of situations. I believe it is their responsibility in fact. The fact that they encourage the habit to demonize "others" points to underlying interests invested in the dominance of one set of ideals over others.. agenda pushers.. whether those ideas are "progressive" or "conservative"..

But I believe people are susceptible to this because it's nature to find safety in what's familiar.. what's known and relatable.. people tend to fight or hide from "the shadows" instead of understanding them.. until they reach that inward maturity, they won't understand how to truly sit down and have open discussions..

I admire the old guy who sat down with KKK members. Some of them had never even spoken to a black man in their lives. Others were pressured by family to join.. it underlies the truth of the reality of the individuality we exist AS instead of the "collectives" we exist IN.. That is what I believe the "Light Side" truly looks like, and it gets real results.. going around punching "Nazis", those who haven't attacked anyone, isn't Light or Justice. It's Dark and only serves to embolden those they wanted to snuff out.. creating further imbalance in society..

.... but I don't think this is by accident.. America in particular is being pushed towards Civil Unrest and has been for awhile now..

Uzima Moto wrote:
I admire the old guy who sat down with KKK members. Some of them had never even spoken to a black man in their lives. Others were pressured by family to join.. it underlies the truth of the reality of the individuality we exist AS instead of the "collectives" we exist IN.. That is what I believe the "Light Side" truly looks like, and it gets real results.. going around punching "Nazis", those who haven't attacked anyone, isn't Light or Justice. It's Dark and only serves to embolden those they wanted to snuff out.. creating further imbalance in society..

.... but I don't think this is by accident.. America in particular is being pushed towards Civil Unrest and has been for awhile now..

YES!

https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinced-200-ku-klux-klan-members-to-give-up-their-robes

This is kind of what I'm talking about!

Think about it... as much as the IP starts out talking about the hero's journey... this guy, this non-Jedi, without any excuses and without any organization behind him, convinced 200 people to change their mind on an issue that some of us don't even want to hear people out on.

This is what we should be training to do. It's not about bashing people over the head with a lightsaber until they, by force, succumb to our will. It's about negotiating with people, hearing their side and presenting your own, and figuring out why they personally believe that side and if they can personally see your side. The goal doesn't have to be to change everyone but rather to present the strongest case possible for the ideals and virtues that Jedi hold sacred. That is a way of fighting without bloodshed. It's conversion; not to join our religion, but join us in being for the same virtues and ideals. That's how you change the world. One person at a time if you have to. The more people doing it the more effective it becomes. I believe that many of these people, including actual Nazis, are simply in a group because they think that the members of that group care about them and no one else does. And when we don't care we toss people aside and ignore their problems and ignore the reasons why they hate and why they commit mass murder and why they commit suicide and why they cut themselves and why they hate their parents and why they bully other kids. It's not unheard of for religions to have outreach programs to help people in their community. It wouldn't be unheard of if we created a program as well.

And who knows... maybe there's an opposite to cancel culture, some positive method we could come up with that helped make a difference in people's lives, giving instead of taking away, just because they've done something we think is Jedi-like and heroic and behavior we'd like to see more of like a lottery for good people.

Just an opinion, but the anti-cancel culture that effects change is built by actually connecting with people. Know the people and see things through their eyes and you are much more likely to change their point of view. This is what Mr. Davis did to get these men to disavow the KKK. People need to see that it is in fact people, with fears, emotions, thoughts that they are breaking instead of the idea itself.

Personally I believe, as in my earlier post that this is a major reason we see such a divide and ideological battles. We are not at war with each other, we've just been told we are and taken it from there.

Much Love,
Kobos

Kobos wrote: Just an opinion, but the anti-cancel culture that effects change is built by actually connecting with people. Know the people and see things through their eyes and you are much more likely to change their point of view. This is what Mr. Davis did to get these men to disavow the KKK. People need to see that it is in fact people, with fears, emotions, thoughts that they are breaking instead of the idea itself.

Personally I believe, as in my earlier post that this is a major reason we see such a divide and ideological battles. We are not at war with each other, we've just been told we are and taken it from there.

Much Love,
Kobos

Thank you for sharing your wisdom.