Everyone is a unique individual. Everyone has been gifted with a unique set of gifts and talents. Many times, the difference in strategy is that of personality, or as the old saying goes:
There are more than one way to skin a cat
I know, PETA types have been triggered, however, this saying from the mid-1800s is from a Yankee author, which explains some things but I digress. The meaning though is clear, there are many paths to a destination, and one can force it in one extreme, or just let things happen in another.
While I am not a fan of “evangelism” to the extreme, many do make it their primary agenda to force a conversion of other people to a religion, a worldview or a narrative. I am not that type. I would rather “let the chips fall where they may” but others might have the patience to engage in dialog to bring about a change of mind and heart (or the other way around) which brings me to this quote in the Target Liberty post on 17JAN:
If you want to change how people think the first step is to understand the world as it exists in their mind, convince them that you understand it and do so without using the opportunity to give them shit for it. Most libertarians lack the social skills to do all three.
In my mind, I am not into wasting time proceeding to dialog with someone who might either be slow to track OR resistant because they are part of a cult (just know, Statism is a cult!).
Here is a great leading question that is also offered in this post:
.. I asked him if he was a “logical person or an emotional person,” ..
That question right there can save BOTH of you some time.
Most emotional people at the extreme are easily triggered and are following some Rx/narrative that helps them believe they are helping with “good thoughts” alone.
Most logical people at the extreme can also be on the rails towards some solution that they believe with all their mind is the way forward.
However, those that can do both, engage their mind and heart in critically thinking out of a love for self and others, is a unique gift and talent. These people were considered to be part of the remnant that a 1930s author, Albert Nock, would focus on in his life’s work. (see the last few paragraphs of my previous post that talks about this concept and where it came from)
Here is what Nock wrote about the prophet’s job. He used Isaiah as his example. The prophet’s job is not the job of the promoter.
“.. Isaiah, on the other hand, worked under no such disabilities. He preached to the masses only in the sense that he preached publicly. Anyone who liked might listen; anyone who liked might pass by. He knew that the Remnant would listen; and knowing also that nothing was to be expected of the masses under any circumstances, he made no specific appeal to them, did not accommodate his message to their measure in any way, and did not care two straws whether they heeded it or not. As a modern publisher might put it, he was not worrying about circulation or about advertising. Hence, with all such obsessions quite out of the way, he was in a position to do his level best, without fear or favour, and answerable only to his august Boss…”
Let the chips fall where they may (if that suits you, not trying to convert you) .. life is short!
Peace out.
-SF1