Thursday, May 14, 2020

Stranger in a Strange Land

Jumped into a conversation mid-stream

Understood much less than I thought about the group dynamic

Less substance often earned the biggest applause

If you raised an objection or saw the world differently, you knew little

At least there was one voice, obnoxious and blunt – yes, but clear in his thinking, speaking sensibly

Never challenged directly, always subtly and without substance

Preaching to the choir seemed to work best

Verdict delivered

Keep out, that’s what I have decided


  1. Sounds about normal.

    Differing opinion from late comer is rejected by the existing group without effective engagement or dialogue. Perhaps a shortsighted response with a flavor of groupthink?

    Resulting in a drawing of lines between those who don't align to our perspective. Again, perhaps a shortsighted response towards an attitude of groupthink?

    But alas, an interesting window to human history, in a microcosm.

    Perhaps an opportunity for reflection?

  2. Hi Bionic M,
    Remember me?
    Some time back, I concluded a blog rant/defense/apoplectic stroke with these words (it was in relation to something by Hoppe/Block/Kinsella, I cannot remember which now, but will dig it up in due course).....

    "I defend liberty, not libertarianism..."

    Not every position that is held by scholars/activists is the result of good-faith intellectual query.
    Very many are just rationalizations of power positions preferred by the scholar.

    Lila Rajiva