In a previous post, Dave, you considered leaving this forum altogether. This latest article is precisely the reason why you MUST continue to write. In an increasingly dangerous society with deeply entrenched sides unwilling to listen to each other, yours is the only sane and logical one. Keep writing, my friend. Keep writing.
Thanks Andrea. I hope you know that you've been an influence on me for a good number of years. Always encouraging me to write, and setting an example of how to get along across the divide.
Thanks, Dave, for your kind words. I know great writing when I see it, and I certainly see it in you. I especially admire your Logic and Reason (capitalized here to recognize their sanctity). Keep sharing your musings with this sometimes broken world.
Yup, not listening at all is a sign of someone not knowing enough of the full subject to defend their position. I've heard a friend say exactly what you stated, to stop talking about it (because if differed from their opinion) and that there is no other {reasonable} side to hear. That was after she had a drink too many, but it was indeed how she felt. No one wanted to hear the man's side - yes, there is one. It will sound selfish to some. Here it goes. If the woman wants to abort, the man has to go with it since he has no rights even if he wants the child. However, if the man wants the abortion but the woman does not, the man is held responsible against his wishes (remember, the man has no rights). In an age of fairness used as a position on any topic, just where are men’s rights? It took two to tango but the man has no say in any of this situation. I'm not exactly advocating for men's rights here, but if I even brought this topic to my gal friend, stand back. "Stop talking, there is no argument, and I'll add that men have absolutely no say in it; men will have to take it because it's all their fault anyway. And taking it means to support mother and child financially, so let’s not kid ourselves about the female being the only affected tango partner here. Dave, you're perfectly correct about your broader topic of people just being unwilling to even hear the other side. It’s dangerous. THANKS again.
Thank YOU Greg. Great points. I'd add that if two people get drunk and screw, the female will not be held responsible if her drunken sexuality causes her remorse. Instead, her male counterpart - equally impaired - WILL be held to account for them both.
[ Image of a hand holding high a Bic Lighter, lit. ]
With comments turned off for your “Time For A Reset” piece, I was unable to communicate a reply. While not known for my word-economy, for that piece, my intended reply / comment was actually wordless. You can’t send anything but text in these comments, but if I could have, my response would have simply been an image of my hand holding up a Bic lighter—the universal call for encore: a way of communicating to a musician that his work is loved/appreciated, and that more is wanted (and in my case, needed).
Please don’t leave Substack. I sorely miss your YouTube vids (but absolutely understand how & why you moved on).
I intend to provide a fuller comment on this piece later in the week. But wanted to get this to you now. Until I do, here’s an initial thought:
I keep hearing that our society is growing progressively polarized—the implication being that we’re self-segregating into to opposite poles. “Pick a side, dude. You’re either with us, or agin’ us.”
I disagree. Sure, there’s a lot of rancor out there. A whole lot of arguing. Shouting without listening. And while those doing all the shouting do seem to inhabit opposite poles, my sense is that “we” are NOT polarized. Those at the poles are the loudest since they’re doing all the shouting. So their voices do seem to dominate, accelerated and exaggerated further by a business model in media (social and otherwise) which thrives on conflict. And, I believe, assisted further by foreign actors with a stake in seeing us tear ourselves apart.
My strong and consistent sense is that the great majority of us continue to be closer to an equator than a pole. If we could aim some gizmo at a thousand people which yields a reading as to where each individual falls on the oddly contrived one-dimensional spectrum of Left-Right, my bet is that most of those people would be reported to be “Center-Left” or “Center-Right,” with very few being at one of the extremes. Looking at your News Media graphic, my bet is that there is a whole lot more readership / viewership toward those three middle groupings, than the far left or far right outlets.
Thank you for sharing the sources you find yourself reading/following.
Me? I follow this post-partisan hippie guy named Dave Morrison.
Well thought out commentary. I don't ever debate anybody. I have yet to encounter anyone actually interested in my opinion. I don't recall ever changing anyones opinion. I think of politics like sports fandom. If someone likes the Yankees/Coyboys/Lakers there is nothing you can do to talk them out of it. And they will die defending their team. There just aint no logic to it.
Right. One of the reasons that I've always criticized our national obsession with 'spectator' sports. People are always primed to root for an absolute zero-sum victory by one team over the other. Politics should be win-win. But we're programmed not to accept that.
Great conversation. Thank you Dave for kicking it off with that well-written and well thought out post. A few of my thoughts: Thoughtful reflection on ideas that differ from those held by the people you love most is really hard. It's as hard as daily exercise when you are old and your whole body hurts for at least the first twenty minutes of it. To overcome natural impulses to do hard things requires an understanding both of those natural impulses and the legitimate reasons to do it any way. My faith calls me to accurate humility; I am not God and there is a God outside me and my tribe that I am accountable to. (Of course, I am aware that not everyone shares that belief, and that those who do are not always characterized by humility.) The more I learn, the closer I get to the beautiful truth that is at the heart of all things, and the better decisions I make about my life. I have noticed that it also does feel better in the end to be the best self that I can, even if it also hurts and involves loss. That's also one of my motivations. I know that we all have different reasons for moral courage and intellectual integrity, as well as the deep humor that comes from seeing ourselves clearly. Your reasons for self-reflection may not be the same as mine, but I do believe that it is important, and will be increasingly important in a battlefield season, to find out what they are, remember them, share them and remind each other of them. I think that we are in the minority, those of us who are committed to this practice, and we need to support each other. It won't be a popular stance, but in the end, there is also a joy in being in the company of those who make good and hard choices. Glad you are all out there!
I tried to email this earlier . I will try posting it here in your previous essay regarding a shortage of support... this is my take on that.
.
Trying to please the public..... is catering to ignorance and sloth... a looser across all aspects.. more or less, ymmv etc... maybe if you looked like Taylor Swift it might not be.
The mass is headed south....counting on, or hoping to please them is a mistake imo.
*********
Your public is the top smaller percent.
Please your yourself.....and stay at the top tiny percent
And here you are....trying to assess your worth on pleasing the ambient bone head....I see that as a mistake.
If you really want a boost maybe you should cut an album with Ms Fong ..that jumps... nothing mornfull.... if it goes gold ...you can stop by my place in high mountain jungle of Guatemala and shove the money under the door.
This really hits home for me, Dave…as the daughter of a Democrat leaning mother and a Republican leaning father, I grew up in a very balanced household where all views were considered and no one was ostracized for agreeing with or questioning those views.
And as an Episcopal priest, my father taught us to have empathy and listen to everyone in our community, and that all voices carry value, even if we disagree with them.
It’s hard for me to hear various friends and some extended family who are so entrenched in their beliefs that they are willing to end relationships because of them. And sometimes, it can feel lonely, because there are so many people these days, it seems, who would be willing to end their relationships with me for trying to present more empathetic questions and opinions. I think about this quite a bit.
I try to read left and right news outlets and the same for YT. It can be fatiguing at times as particularly with YT hate sells more than a measured point of view.
The truth is in the middle. I have been saying that for the past 20 years.
I went to college as an adult. During that time I had a political/philosophical/religious disagreement with what a professor was teaching. She didn’t speak to me for 2 weeks and then said “I thought this was a university setting and we could have a free flow of ideas” with a smile I responded, “it is and my ideas are different that yours”.
When she realized I was arguing for my side after hearing hers and it wasn’t personal, we got along great.
Once again Dave excellent points. Continue to be a champion for finding the truth and reminding us that it is somewhere near the middle.
My approach starts with the anger within. Where does that come from and is it useful. Whenever I am “triggered” by an external influence, I will immediately stop thought and question my direction. I can’t have peace while being angry. I try to catch it early so it’s not out of control and full of adrenaline and fear. Some people think it’s necessary and a right to express that anger and fear, but it’s used mostly to control other people. I prefer to have peace to offer any situation. I am quite aware of the dark night of the soul, but it doesn’t do any good to “act” that way. Whenever I go there, I bring a torch light to see what it really is.. then let it wash through me. With love, I do this alone, without a group awareness or acceptance. Makes things simple, quick and peaceful. Thanks!!! Gary
To paraphrase you a bit, you made an excellent point: Not only do many people strongly identify themselves with their ideologies, for many reasons they can’t afford NOT to.
I believe humans are genetically wired to experience themselves through their created identities (probably to assure tribal affiliations, as you pointed out). Just as vision and hearing are the brain’s interpretations of raw electrical impulses from our eyes and ears, we are genetically programmed to (at least partially) create reality as an interpretation of the world that reinforces our identity. The so-called ‘existential culture wars’ really are just that.
I read that for almost all of human history, sugar was an important source of calories, but was extremely hard to find: we are genetically wired to crave sugar out of all proportion to its modern availability. The point is that any attempt to solve the obesity problem that ignores or denies this intrinsic aspect of human nature, is doomed to failure.
Likewise, any attempt to ‘get past’ our ideological, dogmatic tendencies is also doomed. We either have to find less toxic ways of expressing our one-sided, ritualised viewpoints, or we have to find ways of isolating them so the out of proportion attention that fuels their toxic growth is cut off.
Great points, David. If enough smart thoughtful people like yourself, and myself, are able to own our mammal minds with all of their limitations, we'll gradually make that less of a problem for others to admit. And that's half the game.
Though, as you note, we are inclined toward these self created realities and identities ... we are also capable of knowing that about ourselves. And of seeing the humor in it. And of turning this bemused self-awareness into a something of a mark of cool.
Thought provoking, easy read... Self reflection seems to be in short supply these days, along with tolerance of differing, non violet perspectives and opinions all the way around.
An excellent article, Dave! Anything in particular inspire you to write it?
I discovered Haidt through his TED talk regarding the very topic in which you quoted him. I was recently saddened to see he suffered the very title of this article during a discussion with Joe Rogan. Perhaps you saw it? It was nearly a shocking moment for me, as I expected Jonathan to consider the point of view that Joe was suggesting. They were discussing the very Trump quote for which you edited your last article, and you even went so far as to apologize for not researching before writing.
I have tried a number of things in an attempt to open the door on the minds of two good people within one of my now more loosely associated social circles. Those two far lefties immediately brand me as a supporter of those involved in the incidents I cite. I don’t really have a dog in the examples. I, like the way you did with the folksy, am just trying to see if I can get them to consider an alternate view. They typically cannot.
For some reason and I’m not sure of the status at this very moment, the loosely associated social circle and I still engage in text messaging, which allowed me to share this article of yours. It may have as little effect as Haidt’s TED talk which I’ve shared with them repeatedly. Their cage doors may be welded shut.
As I mentioned in a comment on your previous article, I found your Blue Collar Logic YouTube Channel a refreshing voice of common sense in the 2017 world of anti-Trump propaganda.
Thank you for continuing the effort to bring folks together.
I don't patronize Joe Rogan anymore. I think he's an irresponsible guy, and platforms controversial people to millions and millions of listeners without any idea whether or not they are full of shit.
Jonathon Haidt making a mistake on a given podcast is understandable. We all make mistakes in 'the moment'. That doesn't invalidate his research, or his long-considered insights.
Now if he was to repeatedly double down on something he got wrong, that would be to intentionally lie - as we see Trump, and Biden, and Harris doing all the time.
No one thing inspired me to write this. Twenty-plus years of watching biased news profiteers and their adherents ruining our country has inspired me to write on this issue many dozens of times. It's such a severe problem, that I struggle to not write about it more often.
Your comment about not patronising Joe Rogan hits on one of the most important and overlooked aspects of the free speech debate: every single right, every single freedom comes paired with obligations and responsibilities. If we're going to extend the right of free speech (and we should), it's absolutely imperative that we exercise that right responsibly. That responsibility starts with choosing to simply NOT LISTEN to speech we find irresponsible.
Hey, thanks for the reply! Your views on Rogan are fascinating. It makes me curious about your views on one of the topics for which I have been labeled as an Alex Jones supporter.
Maybe I should scan your articles before posing this as you may have addressed it and I missed it. I listen way more than I read, which is why I would encourage you to read these articles on YT. Maybe shut down YT comments and ask for replies on Substack? Looks like you are getting tens of thousands of views there.
Anyway, thoughts on the judicial process on Jones? Should similar case be brought against Rogan?
Sorry! The article I was referencing was not your most recent. It was the one titled, What if Trump loses? What if he wins?” And you addressed the “bloodbath” portion in the comments.
What a great article - goes along with the heart of this (much shorter) piece by Derek Sivers:
https://sive.rs/led
"I want to lose every debate"
In a previous post, Dave, you considered leaving this forum altogether. This latest article is precisely the reason why you MUST continue to write. In an increasingly dangerous society with deeply entrenched sides unwilling to listen to each other, yours is the only sane and logical one. Keep writing, my friend. Keep writing.
Thanks Andrea. I hope you know that you've been an influence on me for a good number of years. Always encouraging me to write, and setting an example of how to get along across the divide.
Thanks, Dave, for your kind words. I know great writing when I see it, and I certainly see it in you. I especially admire your Logic and Reason (capitalized here to recognize their sanctity). Keep sharing your musings with this sometimes broken world.
Yup, not listening at all is a sign of someone not knowing enough of the full subject to defend their position. I've heard a friend say exactly what you stated, to stop talking about it (because if differed from their opinion) and that there is no other {reasonable} side to hear. That was after she had a drink too many, but it was indeed how she felt. No one wanted to hear the man's side - yes, there is one. It will sound selfish to some. Here it goes. If the woman wants to abort, the man has to go with it since he has no rights even if he wants the child. However, if the man wants the abortion but the woman does not, the man is held responsible against his wishes (remember, the man has no rights). In an age of fairness used as a position on any topic, just where are men’s rights? It took two to tango but the man has no say in any of this situation. I'm not exactly advocating for men's rights here, but if I even brought this topic to my gal friend, stand back. "Stop talking, there is no argument, and I'll add that men have absolutely no say in it; men will have to take it because it's all their fault anyway. And taking it means to support mother and child financially, so let’s not kid ourselves about the female being the only affected tango partner here. Dave, you're perfectly correct about your broader topic of people just being unwilling to even hear the other side. It’s dangerous. THANKS again.
Thank YOU Greg. Great points. I'd add that if two people get drunk and screw, the female will not be held responsible if her drunken sexuality causes her remorse. Instead, her male counterpart - equally impaired - WILL be held to account for them both.
[ Image of a hand holding high a Bic Lighter, lit. ]
With comments turned off for your “Time For A Reset” piece, I was unable to communicate a reply. While not known for my word-economy, for that piece, my intended reply / comment was actually wordless. You can’t send anything but text in these comments, but if I could have, my response would have simply been an image of my hand holding up a Bic lighter—the universal call for encore: a way of communicating to a musician that his work is loved/appreciated, and that more is wanted (and in my case, needed).
Please don’t leave Substack. I sorely miss your YouTube vids (but absolutely understand how & why you moved on).
I intend to provide a fuller comment on this piece later in the week. But wanted to get this to you now. Until I do, here’s an initial thought:
I keep hearing that our society is growing progressively polarized—the implication being that we’re self-segregating into to opposite poles. “Pick a side, dude. You’re either with us, or agin’ us.”
I disagree. Sure, there’s a lot of rancor out there. A whole lot of arguing. Shouting without listening. And while those doing all the shouting do seem to inhabit opposite poles, my sense is that “we” are NOT polarized. Those at the poles are the loudest since they’re doing all the shouting. So their voices do seem to dominate, accelerated and exaggerated further by a business model in media (social and otherwise) which thrives on conflict. And, I believe, assisted further by foreign actors with a stake in seeing us tear ourselves apart.
My strong and consistent sense is that the great majority of us continue to be closer to an equator than a pole. If we could aim some gizmo at a thousand people which yields a reading as to where each individual falls on the oddly contrived one-dimensional spectrum of Left-Right, my bet is that most of those people would be reported to be “Center-Left” or “Center-Right,” with very few being at one of the extremes. Looking at your News Media graphic, my bet is that there is a whole lot more readership / viewership toward those three middle groupings, than the far left or far right outlets.
Thank you for sharing the sources you find yourself reading/following.
Me? I follow this post-partisan hippie guy named Dave Morrison.
Thanks Joseph! Lots of food for thought there.
Well thought out commentary. I don't ever debate anybody. I have yet to encounter anyone actually interested in my opinion. I don't recall ever changing anyones opinion. I think of politics like sports fandom. If someone likes the Yankees/Coyboys/Lakers there is nothing you can do to talk them out of it. And they will die defending their team. There just aint no logic to it.
Right. One of the reasons that I've always criticized our national obsession with 'spectator' sports. People are always primed to root for an absolute zero-sum victory by one team over the other. Politics should be win-win. But we're programmed not to accept that.
Great conversation. Thank you Dave for kicking it off with that well-written and well thought out post. A few of my thoughts: Thoughtful reflection on ideas that differ from those held by the people you love most is really hard. It's as hard as daily exercise when you are old and your whole body hurts for at least the first twenty minutes of it. To overcome natural impulses to do hard things requires an understanding both of those natural impulses and the legitimate reasons to do it any way. My faith calls me to accurate humility; I am not God and there is a God outside me and my tribe that I am accountable to. (Of course, I am aware that not everyone shares that belief, and that those who do are not always characterized by humility.) The more I learn, the closer I get to the beautiful truth that is at the heart of all things, and the better decisions I make about my life. I have noticed that it also does feel better in the end to be the best self that I can, even if it also hurts and involves loss. That's also one of my motivations. I know that we all have different reasons for moral courage and intellectual integrity, as well as the deep humor that comes from seeing ourselves clearly. Your reasons for self-reflection may not be the same as mine, but I do believe that it is important, and will be increasingly important in a battlefield season, to find out what they are, remember them, share them and remind each other of them. I think that we are in the minority, those of us who are committed to this practice, and we need to support each other. It won't be a popular stance, but in the end, there is also a joy in being in the company of those who make good and hard choices. Glad you are all out there!
Well said!
I tried to email this earlier . I will try posting it here in your previous essay regarding a shortage of support... this is my take on that.
.
Trying to please the public..... is catering to ignorance and sloth... a looser across all aspects.. more or less, ymmv etc... maybe if you looked like Taylor Swift it might not be.
The mass is headed south....counting on, or hoping to please them is a mistake imo.
*********
Your public is the top smaller percent.
Please your yourself.....and stay at the top tiny percent
And here you are....trying to assess your worth on pleasing the ambient bone head....I see that as a mistake.
If you really want a boost maybe you should cut an album with Ms Fong ..that jumps... nothing mornfull.... if it goes gold ...you can stop by my place in high mountain jungle of Guatemala and shove the money under the door.
.
.
Phil scott
Ha! Thanks for the comment. And the invitation.
As always, very well done…Just need to figure out how we deprogram ourselves and think on our own.
Indeed.
This really hits home for me, Dave…as the daughter of a Democrat leaning mother and a Republican leaning father, I grew up in a very balanced household where all views were considered and no one was ostracized for agreeing with or questioning those views.
And as an Episcopal priest, my father taught us to have empathy and listen to everyone in our community, and that all voices carry value, even if we disagree with them.
It’s hard for me to hear various friends and some extended family who are so entrenched in their beliefs that they are willing to end relationships because of them. And sometimes, it can feel lonely, because there are so many people these days, it seems, who would be willing to end their relationships with me for trying to present more empathetic questions and opinions. I think about this quite a bit.
Love your writing as always!
Love you, Justine.
I try to read left and right news outlets and the same for YT. It can be fatiguing at times as particularly with YT hate sells more than a measured point of view.
Thanka again for another thoughtful article!
Thanks Josh!
The truth is in the middle. I have been saying that for the past 20 years.
I went to college as an adult. During that time I had a political/philosophical/religious disagreement with what a professor was teaching. She didn’t speak to me for 2 weeks and then said “I thought this was a university setting and we could have a free flow of ideas” with a smile I responded, “it is and my ideas are different that yours”.
When she realized I was arguing for my side after hearing hers and it wasn’t personal, we got along great.
Once again Dave excellent points. Continue to be a champion for finding the truth and reminding us that it is somewhere near the middle.
I love it! Yes, we humans suck at seeing past our own biases. It takes work. But it's worth it.
Thoughtful writing Dave!!!
My approach starts with the anger within. Where does that come from and is it useful. Whenever I am “triggered” by an external influence, I will immediately stop thought and question my direction. I can’t have peace while being angry. I try to catch it early so it’s not out of control and full of adrenaline and fear. Some people think it’s necessary and a right to express that anger and fear, but it’s used mostly to control other people. I prefer to have peace to offer any situation. I am quite aware of the dark night of the soul, but it doesn’t do any good to “act” that way. Whenever I go there, I bring a torch light to see what it really is.. then let it wash through me. With love, I do this alone, without a group awareness or acceptance. Makes things simple, quick and peaceful. Thanks!!! Gary
Good stuff, Gary. Hang in there.
Hey Dave,
To paraphrase you a bit, you made an excellent point: Not only do many people strongly identify themselves with their ideologies, for many reasons they can’t afford NOT to.
I believe humans are genetically wired to experience themselves through their created identities (probably to assure tribal affiliations, as you pointed out). Just as vision and hearing are the brain’s interpretations of raw electrical impulses from our eyes and ears, we are genetically programmed to (at least partially) create reality as an interpretation of the world that reinforces our identity. The so-called ‘existential culture wars’ really are just that.
I read that for almost all of human history, sugar was an important source of calories, but was extremely hard to find: we are genetically wired to crave sugar out of all proportion to its modern availability. The point is that any attempt to solve the obesity problem that ignores or denies this intrinsic aspect of human nature, is doomed to failure.
Likewise, any attempt to ‘get past’ our ideological, dogmatic tendencies is also doomed. We either have to find less toxic ways of expressing our one-sided, ritualised viewpoints, or we have to find ways of isolating them so the out of proportion attention that fuels their toxic growth is cut off.
Great points, David. If enough smart thoughtful people like yourself, and myself, are able to own our mammal minds with all of their limitations, we'll gradually make that less of a problem for others to admit. And that's half the game.
Though, as you note, we are inclined toward these self created realities and identities ... we are also capable of knowing that about ourselves. And of seeing the humor in it. And of turning this bemused self-awareness into a something of a mark of cool.
Read and enjoyed it, Dave. Haven’t thought about John Stuart Mill for a while. As a lawyer, you have to know both sides of an argument.
True! And even non-lawyers benefit from a little investigation.
Thought provoking, easy read... Self reflection seems to be in short supply these days, along with tolerance of differing, non violet perspectives and opinions all the way around.
An excellent article, Dave! Anything in particular inspire you to write it?
I discovered Haidt through his TED talk regarding the very topic in which you quoted him. I was recently saddened to see he suffered the very title of this article during a discussion with Joe Rogan. Perhaps you saw it? It was nearly a shocking moment for me, as I expected Jonathan to consider the point of view that Joe was suggesting. They were discussing the very Trump quote for which you edited your last article, and you even went so far as to apologize for not researching before writing.
I have tried a number of things in an attempt to open the door on the minds of two good people within one of my now more loosely associated social circles. Those two far lefties immediately brand me as a supporter of those involved in the incidents I cite. I don’t really have a dog in the examples. I, like the way you did with the folksy, am just trying to see if I can get them to consider an alternate view. They typically cannot.
For some reason and I’m not sure of the status at this very moment, the loosely associated social circle and I still engage in text messaging, which allowed me to share this article of yours. It may have as little effect as Haidt’s TED talk which I’ve shared with them repeatedly. Their cage doors may be welded shut.
As I mentioned in a comment on your previous article, I found your Blue Collar Logic YouTube Channel a refreshing voice of common sense in the 2017 world of anti-Trump propaganda.
Thank you for continuing the effort to bring folks together.
Sincerely,
Dave
Hey Dave,
I don't patronize Joe Rogan anymore. I think he's an irresponsible guy, and platforms controversial people to millions and millions of listeners without any idea whether or not they are full of shit.
Jonathon Haidt making a mistake on a given podcast is understandable. We all make mistakes in 'the moment'. That doesn't invalidate his research, or his long-considered insights.
Now if he was to repeatedly double down on something he got wrong, that would be to intentionally lie - as we see Trump, and Biden, and Harris doing all the time.
No one thing inspired me to write this. Twenty-plus years of watching biased news profiteers and their adherents ruining our country has inspired me to write on this issue many dozens of times. It's such a severe problem, that I struggle to not write about it more often.
Thanks for the comment.
-Dave
Your comment about not patronising Joe Rogan hits on one of the most important and overlooked aspects of the free speech debate: every single right, every single freedom comes paired with obligations and responsibilities. If we're going to extend the right of free speech (and we should), it's absolutely imperative that we exercise that right responsibly. That responsibility starts with choosing to simply NOT LISTEN to speech we find irresponsible.
Hey, thanks for the reply! Your views on Rogan are fascinating. It makes me curious about your views on one of the topics for which I have been labeled as an Alex Jones supporter.
Maybe I should scan your articles before posing this as you may have addressed it and I missed it. I listen way more than I read, which is why I would encourage you to read these articles on YT. Maybe shut down YT comments and ask for replies on Substack? Looks like you are getting tens of thousands of views there.
Anyway, thoughts on the judicial process on Jones? Should similar case be brought against Rogan?
Anyway,
Sorry! The article I was referencing was not your most recent. It was the one titled, What if Trump loses? What if he wins?” And you addressed the “bloodbath” portion in the comments.
:D