While going through my Substack inbox this afternoon I encountered an interview that raised many red flags in my mind. I really wanted to say something in the comments. There were 50 of them already, a small number for that blog, and before writing anything I read or skimmed through all of them. 21 were replies from the interviewee, and they struck me as well-designed efforts to “control the narrative”.
Well now I just had to write something, and it was carefully crafted to point out what I had observed while giving the interviewee hardly anything with which to come back at me. Then, when I had it all written and proofed, I deleted it, including my archival copy.
I know that some of you subscribing to or following this blog subscribe to that one too, and you may have seen the article in question. If so, it would be fine with me if you didn’t mention it by name here, but if you did read it, do you see what I see? An author (of a book, not the blog) writing about patterns of destructive behavior and then demonstrating them in his own behavior? (Or am I comletely off track here?) I learned enough just from composing my reply, and having to approach it so carefully, that I feel like I was finished with the matter.
Depending on the nature of the reply, I will “pray before sending”. I did that here, and then realized that if there were any good to come out of posting it, I couldn’t imagine what it would be. I also had a fair idea, from reading those 21 interviewee replies and recognizing what they represented, about what might be coming back at me if I did post it, and to what end? I kind of like this “no reply” approach to replying, when it fits. It wasn’t the first time ever, but I might just be using it more often.
I like what you said: "what good will come of this?" I became very limited on social media consciously before the last election. I saw so much vitriol instead of people trying to understand another perspective. On something completely innocuous (I thought), I learned my "like" had been interpreted into something I never could have contemplated and certainly did not intend to convey. So I even became sparing with my likes. Now I might borrow your words- what good will come of this- if I am ever tempted to respond.
I treat nearly everything here as an opinion that people are sharing. People who bother to state their opinion will naturally want to defend it. Just because someone is famous, high-ranking, or is known as an expert in their field, doesn't necessarily mean that they are correct or that they should be trusted. I might state an opinion based on my observations in life and human behavior without specific data to back it. I think either is fine, it's an opinion, but when I see someone forcing the opinion in a non-respectfully way that is certainly unbecoming of that person, but it doesn't not mean their opinion is wrong. I stay out of the bickering or pointing out of people specifically because everyone has their own following and engaging in such arguments usually doesn't accomplish anything productive. Rather I just like to state my ideas or thoughts just to see who agrees or disagrees and I reflect on it. Given the five billion supplements, treatments, medicine, herbs, therapies being suggested from all the different writers, I think it's a good choice to ask how would our Creator want us to live and thrive? Would our Creator want everyone in the world to *need* one specific thing that is manufactured or only found in a remote part of the world or that is too expensive for the average person to purchase? I believe something "good" for us can take many forms and the very best are not sold in a bottle or require regular visits for therapy. Yes if we have a specific ailment, I understand getting treatment. I have a hunch though that our Creator sees how complicated we have made everything, in our air, water and things we consume. Likely a move toward homegrown, natural, whole, and variety is key, variety in so many different ways. I'm starting to gravitate to those substackers more. Just wish I had more time to apply what I read. I'm a wannabe not a doer and wonder am I living wrong and have I for a very long time?
Our "scientific progress" (no direct relation to the Substack by that name) takes us ever further away from real answers, instead creating new problems to be solved by "science". I tend to equate "science" (i.e. "knowledge") with "the knowledge of good and evil", which is a pathway to death. We were created to live.
At this stage of our "progress", it is not clear to me that there is any way to be healthy, other than to live a subsistence existence in some remote part of the world, and even then there is the problem of the inter-generational damage that has occurred and won't just go away.
That we have a Creator is something that ought to be clear to those whose minds are not damaged and closed off from lifetime exposure to scientific lies. That we require a Savior, should follow from that. That a Savior might place conditions on our being saved -- such as requiring us to align with and submit to the order of creation -- would seem to me to be common sense. We must relinquish our need to be in charge of things. We're not. We never were. The more we try to be, the further we stray.
just blocked a few people that forbid me to speak my mind. I seldom block someone but these were obviously med scholars who wanted to forbid me to say that I knew some substances to be poisonous, I even mentioned where to find the info.
very curious which one…don’t have time to look at all of them but would like to check it out the one you refer to because I have come across several previously like you describe. Statestack.
I do the same thing. There have been times I feel the manipulative and destructive nature of an article needs some kind of clarion call for counterbalance. Sometimes i go ahead and post and sometimes I don't as I feel guided by the Holy Spirit.
One personal piece of guidance is if I feel a "hot emotion" rising in me I need to sit on this. Usually that means it's pushing a personal button and I probably will not be helpful and will not be able to rationally deal with the blowback, so I don't reply.
Other times after receiving guidance, realizing I do need to state clearly the manipulation, etc., I perceive, and knowing I only have the interests of helping others, not my own issues, I post. When I use this personal measure, I can deal with the blowback without being damaged. I try and use discernment from the Holy Spirit to tell me when to go ahead and when to stand back and work on my own issues so I can be more useful to God.
I suppose sometimes I think I am a sound vessel and sometimes I'm not.
Though there are times the issue at hand is large enough to warrant action on my part whether I'm ready or not. If a writer is promoting or justifying self-destruction, especially in a sleight of hand that may be difficult for others to perceive, that may be a large enough reason to reply.
I know many things promote ideas using surreptitious methods. Like murder shows on TV that teach people methods for killing and how to get away with it. Also, pop culture that normalizes pedophilia and other aberrant perversions. There are many.
Only the individual guided by the Holy Spirit moment by moment knows which is the best path.
Such a great topic and one we all face online. God Bless.
Yes to all. This was an unusual situation I had not seen before. But first I need to reiterate that I don't have a problem with the Substack author choosing to post this interview. I don't try to control those choices, even as a paid subscriber. I control what I read, and choose to subscribe or renew based upon that.
The problem here was that while it is not unusual for interviewees to respond in the comment section, they usually do so positively and supportively, while perhaps trying to correct misunderstandings. There was something else going on here, I think, and replying felt like walking into a trap, seeing what happened with the earlier comments by others. Mine (which I deleted without sending) were more pointed than some of the others. And yet others later pointed out (I peeked just now) what I would have, and handled the blow-back well. And I had time to finish my sermon notes markup for running screens tomorrow, and other things related to small group.
If nothing else, this highlights the importance of praying before posting!
I like what you said: "what good will come of this?" I became very limited on social media consciously before the last election. I saw so much vitriol instead of people trying to understand another perspective. On something completely innocuous (I thought), I learned my "like" had been interpreted into something I never could have contemplated and certainly did not intend to convey. So I even became sparing with my likes. Now I might borrow your words- what good will come of this- if I am ever tempted to respond.
I treat nearly everything here as an opinion that people are sharing. People who bother to state their opinion will naturally want to defend it. Just because someone is famous, high-ranking, or is known as an expert in their field, doesn't necessarily mean that they are correct or that they should be trusted. I might state an opinion based on my observations in life and human behavior without specific data to back it. I think either is fine, it's an opinion, but when I see someone forcing the opinion in a non-respectfully way that is certainly unbecoming of that person, but it doesn't not mean their opinion is wrong. I stay out of the bickering or pointing out of people specifically because everyone has their own following and engaging in such arguments usually doesn't accomplish anything productive. Rather I just like to state my ideas or thoughts just to see who agrees or disagrees and I reflect on it. Given the five billion supplements, treatments, medicine, herbs, therapies being suggested from all the different writers, I think it's a good choice to ask how would our Creator want us to live and thrive? Would our Creator want everyone in the world to *need* one specific thing that is manufactured or only found in a remote part of the world or that is too expensive for the average person to purchase? I believe something "good" for us can take many forms and the very best are not sold in a bottle or require regular visits for therapy. Yes if we have a specific ailment, I understand getting treatment. I have a hunch though that our Creator sees how complicated we have made everything, in our air, water and things we consume. Likely a move toward homegrown, natural, whole, and variety is key, variety in so many different ways. I'm starting to gravitate to those substackers more. Just wish I had more time to apply what I read. I'm a wannabe not a doer and wonder am I living wrong and have I for a very long time?
Our "scientific progress" (no direct relation to the Substack by that name) takes us ever further away from real answers, instead creating new problems to be solved by "science". I tend to equate "science" (i.e. "knowledge") with "the knowledge of good and evil", which is a pathway to death. We were created to live.
At this stage of our "progress", it is not clear to me that there is any way to be healthy, other than to live a subsistence existence in some remote part of the world, and even then there is the problem of the inter-generational damage that has occurred and won't just go away.
That we have a Creator is something that ought to be clear to those whose minds are not damaged and closed off from lifetime exposure to scientific lies. That we require a Savior, should follow from that. That a Savior might place conditions on our being saved -- such as requiring us to align with and submit to the order of creation -- would seem to me to be common sense. We must relinquish our need to be in charge of things. We're not. We never were. The more we try to be, the further we stray.
To me, some stacks feel like the other side of a coin with 2 tails, no heads.
Pot meets kettle.
Derangement syndromes run amok.
just blocked a few people that forbid me to speak my mind. I seldom block someone but these were obviously med scholars who wanted to forbid me to say that I knew some substances to be poisonous, I even mentioned where to find the info.
🙏
very curious which one…don’t have time to look at all of them but would like to check it out the one you refer to because I have come across several previously like you describe. Statestack.
I do the same thing. There have been times I feel the manipulative and destructive nature of an article needs some kind of clarion call for counterbalance. Sometimes i go ahead and post and sometimes I don't as I feel guided by the Holy Spirit.
One personal piece of guidance is if I feel a "hot emotion" rising in me I need to sit on this. Usually that means it's pushing a personal button and I probably will not be helpful and will not be able to rationally deal with the blowback, so I don't reply.
Other times after receiving guidance, realizing I do need to state clearly the manipulation, etc., I perceive, and knowing I only have the interests of helping others, not my own issues, I post. When I use this personal measure, I can deal with the blowback without being damaged. I try and use discernment from the Holy Spirit to tell me when to go ahead and when to stand back and work on my own issues so I can be more useful to God.
I suppose sometimes I think I am a sound vessel and sometimes I'm not.
Though there are times the issue at hand is large enough to warrant action on my part whether I'm ready or not. If a writer is promoting or justifying self-destruction, especially in a sleight of hand that may be difficult for others to perceive, that may be a large enough reason to reply.
I know many things promote ideas using surreptitious methods. Like murder shows on TV that teach people methods for killing and how to get away with it. Also, pop culture that normalizes pedophilia and other aberrant perversions. There are many.
Only the individual guided by the Holy Spirit moment by moment knows which is the best path.
Such a great topic and one we all face online. God Bless.
Yes to all. This was an unusual situation I had not seen before. But first I need to reiterate that I don't have a problem with the Substack author choosing to post this interview. I don't try to control those choices, even as a paid subscriber. I control what I read, and choose to subscribe or renew based upon that.
The problem here was that while it is not unusual for interviewees to respond in the comment section, they usually do so positively and supportively, while perhaps trying to correct misunderstandings. There was something else going on here, I think, and replying felt like walking into a trap, seeing what happened with the earlier comments by others. Mine (which I deleted without sending) were more pointed than some of the others. And yet others later pointed out (I peeked just now) what I would have, and handled the blow-back well. And I had time to finish my sermon notes markup for running screens tomorrow, and other things related to small group.
If nothing else, this highlights the importance of praying before posting!
"If nothing else, this highlights the importance of praying before posting!"
Yes. Thank you for the reminder. I forget sometimes. Like right now.
I meant I prayed before posting. I remembered.
Thanks.