Wow! This is incredible, it’s like you wrote an entire article just for me.
David Piepgrass

Thank you for sticking with me, David. Somehow, I feel the need to reach an understanding with you. Perhaps it is simply that you are prepared to engage with me with an open mind yet firm about what you believe in. That is way too rare.

…they have to actually care enough to go out and look for information themselves. But most people are not like that (especially the passive readers, the majority, that are reading what you wrote and not having a conversation with you.)

As you imply, I shouldn’t expect everyone to be willing to spend the time and their unwillingness need not even indicate disinterest. On top of that, people have become (or maybe they always were) largely interested only in soundbites, headlines. I have experimented with this a couple of times: come up with a headline that agrees with the group-think then fill the article under it with text that doesn’t actually support the headline at all, or even disproves it, then watch the accolades (‘likes,’ up-votes, ‘hearts,’ etc.) pour in. It is distressing, not so much because there are people who can’t be bothered to read an article but because so many are satisfied only with the headline.

It makes you sharply aware of how easy it is to inject a society with misconceptions and have them believe things that just aren‘t true. Joseph Goebels and Viktor Deni were both good at this in their separate ways and possibly are the root of most propaganda methodologies in use today.

Your comic on “How Internet fighting works” is a good starter for explaining what diplomacy is about, and it certainly applies outside the Internet, too. However, let me make one thing very clear to you: it applies only in the context of one group (or common thought) with another such group, and then only when you are discussing something on which agreement is possible.

If one group knows the sky is pink and won’t pay attention to any facts that don’t lead to that conclusion, it really doesn’t make much difference if you are screaming at the extremists of the pink sky movement, or attempting to discuss with the moderates of that movement. They have an ideology which contains the dogma that the sky is pink, and contains the tenet that anybody trying to convince you otherwise is a liar, a cheat, a sky-hater and must be silenced for their misdeeds. Screaming at extremists is, at best, a pointless waste of time and, at worst, reflects poorly on oneself. Holding a debate with the “moderates” is only of use when there is an audience – a third group – who may be open to persuasion by conviction or fact.

Talking about specifics, it is clear to those who see enough of my writings and actions that I care about women, their rights, their freedoms and their happiness. The men’s organisation I volunteer for,, has many female members and a female executive. Yet I have found that sometimes, I can be far more effective when I just talk about what boys or men need.

I am unable to put my case in a single article. For one thing, we cover global issues, mostly in English but also in Spanish, French, German, Korean and other languages. For another, the issues cover everything from birth rights, through educational discrimination, to divorce & family alienation, health and work matters to life itself. That’s just what we work on to try to help men and society. Far too much of our work isn’t in the realm of positive but is about fighting off further incursions against men, women or children. If I wrote a book, I couldn’t keep it updated fast enough! (And we do all this against worldwide funding that counts in hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ money, while scratching around, spending too much time begging for a little from volunteers.)

That’s all for now. Thank you for engaging with me and be assured that although I seem resistant to your main message, I am listening and will do what I can to improve my reach because that is a distinct part of my purpose.