Thank you for this! I have a similar story, but I won't bother you with it. Suffice it to say that when I attended grad school in 2016 (public health), it was bizarre. The dei shit was everywhere and every attempt I made at arguing some sense into the students and faculty was met with some version of, "you're not thinking the right way" (I got this response from my family, as well... Nearly every member a masters degree or PhD holder).
Academia has always been disdainful of the working class (a university I used to work for saw faculty protesting the president's decision to add a technical college to the campus...the horror! Fortunately the president prevailed). And these days they're so inbred and full of their own privilege and presumed status they're downright insufferable (and their insecurity about both leads them to be even worse than they might be otherwise).
As for getting more from graduate school these days? Unless you're one of the Kool Aid drinkers, the only real solution is to burn the place down and start over. Those of us who were around academia in the 1980s saw this coming...you didn't succeed in grad school unless you found a patron of some sort and mimicked everything they said or thought. It's only going to be worse now because the approved orthodoxy is deeply entrenched. It won't really be purged until a new wave of academics appears, but given how they produce their own (and demolish anyone who doesn't fit the pattern) I'm not sure how long that will take.
Thank you for this. Please, people who have had similar experiences, recount them. This is a dead serious major problem. In my case, the graduate school was theological and I was interested in chaplaincy. I got jumped on in my chaplaincy practicum for saying politely, after 20 years of working as a teacher in the prison system, that I didn't agree with Michelle Alexander's view of the prison system ("The New Jim Crow"). A fellow student called me racist, white supremacist, and unfit to be a chaplain and refused to work with me in any group, and the teacher accommodated him. In the chaplaincy practicum reports, we had to list all the ways a client might be marginalized and also how we ourselves might be discriminating against him or her. But worse than that, we were taught that the essence of chaplaincy was simply hearing the issues of the client and "making him feel heard." If a middle-aged client was refusing a life-saving operation, we were to not to question that. We were certainly not to engage with the client beyond listening or be "directive" in any way even in prison situations, where clients often lacked major life skills. If a client said he was sad because Tom Hanks had COVID and he knew COVID was deadly, we were just supposed to sympathize - not correct the client's impression. (an actual case) If a young client said his lawyer was Jewish and he knew all Jews are just money grubbers and they no doubt did something to bring about the Holocaust, you weren't supposed to correct that either, just somehow empathize with his feeling. There was a great deal of emphasis on establishing a connection with a client through common characteristics such as belonging to the same ethnic group, etc. After an interview for a chaplaincy training program at Bellevue that went well, i was told that they were giving a strong preference to "clients who looked like the patients" and my application was turned down. Worst of all, chaplaincy training emphasized that we were not to try to open the client to hope. (!!) To do this would be a "Hopemonger." Believe it or not, that was utterly taboo. There was a lot of admonition around "giving clients 'false' hope." It finally dawned on me that if we were to offer clients hope, especially any spiritual hope, that might contradict neo-Marxist underpinnings of wokeness and slow the destruction of current "oppressive systems." At least that is my surmise. But clients desperately want and need hope.
What a sad story, Kathy! What ended up happening? Did you find a program that would take you? How sad that even chaplaincy programs are this infected with neo Marxist ideology! Was the program that you were rejected from known to be part of a more mainline or liberal denomination? I’m wondering if even more conservative theological schools are becoming this way. I’ve thought of doing a chaplaincy program myself and I’m interested in prison ministry, so this is relevant to me.
I eventually found a Clinical Pastoral Education administrator who would take me at another hospital who was more open-minded. However, it was very far away, and I eventually chose another path rather than official chaplaincy. But there are also several organizations that prepare chaplain candidates for Board certification and some are more conservative, and grads of more conservative seminaries tend to choose them. There seems to be a lot of rivalry between the various certifying organizations. Before going through all the hoops to become Board Certified, you might look into the requirements for prison chaplaincy in your state. In New York state, where I live, you have to be an ordained minister to serve as a chaplain in the state prisons. In the Federal prisons, you can't be above the age of 32 or something like that, because of the pension system. I worked as a volunteer in education programs in prisons before even thinking of chaplaincy, and when you do one-on-one tutoring, or resume training, or get on a visiting list for prisoners without families, or do anything that brings you into personal contact wiith inmates, you are already doing chaplaincy because they need to talk. You might also consider starting a Houses of Healing (book and program) program with a group or even one inmate, if you can convince the admins in a local prison. an can also be done by correspondence. That's a rather good program. I've found there are many ways to do chaplaincy, aside from an official position. I find myself doing it just in the course of my life a few times a month. I also belong to the New York State Chaplain Task Force, which required a 10-week online raining, which i thought was actually better and much more practical than what I got in the Clinical Pastoral Education program. (I feel those were mostly hoops to jump through...) There is also a national organization called THe US Chaplain Task Force, if you're not in New York State. The first level of that qualifies you as a (volunteer) "field operative." Whenever i do any kind of chaplaincy, I ignore everything I learned in my CPE training program, esp. the part about avoiding the encouragement of hope. If you have the personality and heart for chaplaincy, i think you will train yourself as you go along. As part of good chaplaincy, I also find asking the right questions is also key to getting people talking productively. I also recommend a book called "Healing the Wounds of Trauma - How the Church Can Help" which also is part of a pretty good training program for churches. And churches also can do various kinds of prison ministry...
Thank you so much for all this information, Kathy. It was so kind of you to write all this! I’m currently working with others from my church to try to get approved to go into the local women’s prison, but it’s taking a long time for the prison to review our applications. I was already thinking that it would probably be better to do this than to become an official chaplain, and both of your comments have helped to convince me that this is true. I will check out the resources that you mentioned. Again, thank you so much for all of your advice and helpful information. May God bless you and your ministry.
Candid, informative, and practical. My own experience underscores your view. After four decades of therapeutic work with families and young adults (from a humanistic and faith-based approach), I wanted to volunteer my services in the face of great need. After several interviews, a common (yet civil) response emerged: I was too old and not diverse enough (racially and philosophically)
OMG. What a waste of your potential. (Is there any chance you could volunteer in a prison? The prisons are not yet so woke, and faith-based prison programs are also mostly not. Even just signing up to visit someone or corresponding with someone if that's a possibility. They ALL need to talk to someone. (humanistic and faith-based will get you far in this population)
The author is an extraordinarily good and courageous writer who levels the woke academic colony with a steely ironworkers gaze.
It is encouraging to hear his report at the end that despite the incredible embeddedness of this philosophy that he sees hope for it to be purged from the temples of our academic edifices.
Similar to the field of education, it sounds like psychology could use someone like you, someone who might actually know something about the real world and isn't afraid to ask questions. From my own personal experience, I am partial to CBT as its' focus is practical solutions to real problems and isn't steeped in ideology, from what I've seen. Best of luck.
Thought-provoking article. What I would appreciate from the author is a description of what he would like to see more of, or get more of, from graduate school. For the sake of building a better future for all of us, I always welcome opinions that offer a critique followed by suggestions of what would be more helpful. Makes sense?
I would like to see more course cirriculum be something other than extremely woke and left leaning. I would like the average university that is teaching any youngish, impressionable kids all the way up to those of us who are older remove the easily identifiable leftist terms. I would just love it if the education system weren't obnoxiously skewed and leftist.
It's not even liberal anymore, it's hardcore leftist radical. I applaud Bari Weiss and her cohorts in the University of Austin experiment. But how long can that stay neutral in a city like that?
But all of these wishes of mine (and others) come down to pissing in the wind with the early schooling years being woke and some 90% or more of college professors left leaning, some absolutely unhinged.
I think the only way for anything to change is for young classical liberals and conservatives to go into education and become the teachers they wish were there now. Is that possible? Dunno!
In the course of my work as a newspaper publisher before I retired, and in general reading since, I've frequently come across articles and phraseology that made no sense to me. For a long time, I thought I lacked the background or knowledge to comprehend what I was reading.
Now I've come to understand that a lot of this stuff is just so much highfalutin' crap, a word salad tossed together with no cohesiveness and no "deeper meaning" by people who think they're clever, smart and/or more knowledgeable. They're actually charlatans.
Communication puts an obligation on the "teller" to be comprehensible, not convoluted. If a concept can't be understood, the author is quite likely to be at fault, often because s/he has no understanding of the subject themselves.
As usual, a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon sums this up perfectly...Calvin notes to Hobbes that the purpose of writing is "to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning and inhibit clarity. With a little practice, writing can become an intimidating and impenetrable fog".
He then shows Hobbes his book report titled "The Dynamics of Interbeing and Monological Imperatives in Dick and Jane. A study in psychic transrelational gender modes", while stating "academia, here I come!"
So spot on! Social Work suffers from the same problem. My politics are pretty far left, but the current turn to strict ideology instead of open thinking and debate about ideas has changed the profession- and not for the better. Thankfully, I retire in 10 days.
Some nuance is needed. For instance most science has no cross-section with either the right or left and thus is neutral. And from what I gather, the more conservative scientific outlets are equally if not more biased than what you see on the left. The problem becomes, if the left is wrong does not mean the right is right. And vice versa. Yes psychology in particular has undergone quite a bit of ideological capture. But you can't in any way state that this accounts for most psychological science as most output of science have nothing to do with any kind of politics. But I agree with you on the point that at least psychology education is very left-leaning and elitist and I have wanted to do developmental science a few years back but there where a few mandetory classes that I could not tolerate as they where so heavily skewed in nonscientific ideological drivel that I no longer wish to do any social science master. If I ever where to go back to doing a master and PhD it would be in developmental biology or molecular biology. But for financial reasons it's unlikely and I do get your point. Social science is very much not compatible with blue collar people as it is very much a silo isolated from real life.
Which scientific outlets are conservative and more biased than what is on the left?
Every single professional psych organization that I researched had DEI or something woke in their mission statements or "about us" pages. I did not research every single professional psych organization in existence, but after clicking through quite a few and seeing the same thing over and over, I think it's a fair assessment to say that the world of professional and educational psychology is beyond left leaning and woke. Go look at the the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry website. It's the most terrifying thing imaginable, considering it is supposed to be an organization helping children.
At this point, there are so many interviews, articles and accounts of psychologists admitting to what has happened to the profession and how scary it's become. Megyn Kelly has done interviews, Dr. Drew has told stories, The Free Press has published articles, Michael Shellenberger. I honestly didn't think saying the world of psychology as a whole had become woke would get even the slightest pushback. But there are always surprises!
While much actual scientific research (especially in the “harder” sciences like physics) does not lend itself to ideological bias, the environment in which much of it is conducted (academia) definitely skews left. And this does lead to nonsensical publications about “feminist theories of glaciation” and such. Not to mention people from formerly respectable institutions elevating the construct of “gender identity” over the biological fact of sex.
I read ya. The hard sciences SHOULD be less captured, but look at what happened during covid! If you didn't go along with every single narrative that was the "official word" of the era, you were canceled, deplatformed and in some cases fired or threatened with legal action.
I have gotten to know Dr. Scott Jensen who ran against Tim Walz in 22 here in MN and once he started speaking out against a lot of the covid policies at the time, the State of MN tried to have his medical license revoked on 6 occasions I believe.
But yes, something like physics would seem hard to slant ideologically, I bet it wouldn't take long to find a Harvard or Yale study that claims gravity is racist?!?! Shall we see who can find one first?? Ready.... GO!
Thanks for speaking up. I recently tried to find a therapist on Psychology Today. Their filtering system allows you to search by racial identity, gender identity & sexual orientation. Which is fine...I can see why there might be a need for identity-based concordance between therapist and patient. Except for one thing..."White/Caucasian", "Cisgender", and "Heterosexual" are conveniently left out of the search terms. So if you identify as one of these, you do NOT have the option to search for a therapist who matches your identity. I made a complaint about this to the NYC Commission on Human Rights. After 4 months of back-and-forth with the Commission, they recently sent Psychology Today a letter asking them to change this.
By the very reading and the language of the bill it was indeed to not say gay. It was indeed bands on speech and books. Any blue collar red blooded American that has any love for the First Amendment would not endure such a bill especially when the people on the floor out of themselves that this was indeed to suppress. The issue of whether or not these educational institutions to Thomas on it I think there is a point. What comes to the point is that there's a miscommunication. And especially to treat Trump supporters I think you should have focused on that if it were a pathology. On how they said that. I do not understand why you seem to meander from your central point and give any sort of credence to the disgustingly sensorial legislation that should be opposed by both the right and the left on principle
Thank you for this! I have a similar story, but I won't bother you with it. Suffice it to say that when I attended grad school in 2016 (public health), it was bizarre. The dei shit was everywhere and every attempt I made at arguing some sense into the students and faculty was met with some version of, "you're not thinking the right way" (I got this response from my family, as well... Nearly every member a masters degree or PhD holder).
Thank you for making me feel less alone.
Academia has always been disdainful of the working class (a university I used to work for saw faculty protesting the president's decision to add a technical college to the campus...the horror! Fortunately the president prevailed). And these days they're so inbred and full of their own privilege and presumed status they're downright insufferable (and their insecurity about both leads them to be even worse than they might be otherwise).
As for getting more from graduate school these days? Unless you're one of the Kool Aid drinkers, the only real solution is to burn the place down and start over. Those of us who were around academia in the 1980s saw this coming...you didn't succeed in grad school unless you found a patron of some sort and mimicked everything they said or thought. It's only going to be worse now because the approved orthodoxy is deeply entrenched. It won't really be purged until a new wave of academics appears, but given how they produce their own (and demolish anyone who doesn't fit the pattern) I'm not sure how long that will take.
Thank you for this. Please, people who have had similar experiences, recount them. This is a dead serious major problem. In my case, the graduate school was theological and I was interested in chaplaincy. I got jumped on in my chaplaincy practicum for saying politely, after 20 years of working as a teacher in the prison system, that I didn't agree with Michelle Alexander's view of the prison system ("The New Jim Crow"). A fellow student called me racist, white supremacist, and unfit to be a chaplain and refused to work with me in any group, and the teacher accommodated him. In the chaplaincy practicum reports, we had to list all the ways a client might be marginalized and also how we ourselves might be discriminating against him or her. But worse than that, we were taught that the essence of chaplaincy was simply hearing the issues of the client and "making him feel heard." If a middle-aged client was refusing a life-saving operation, we were to not to question that. We were certainly not to engage with the client beyond listening or be "directive" in any way even in prison situations, where clients often lacked major life skills. If a client said he was sad because Tom Hanks had COVID and he knew COVID was deadly, we were just supposed to sympathize - not correct the client's impression. (an actual case) If a young client said his lawyer was Jewish and he knew all Jews are just money grubbers and they no doubt did something to bring about the Holocaust, you weren't supposed to correct that either, just somehow empathize with his feeling. There was a great deal of emphasis on establishing a connection with a client through common characteristics such as belonging to the same ethnic group, etc. After an interview for a chaplaincy training program at Bellevue that went well, i was told that they were giving a strong preference to "clients who looked like the patients" and my application was turned down. Worst of all, chaplaincy training emphasized that we were not to try to open the client to hope. (!!) To do this would be a "Hopemonger." Believe it or not, that was utterly taboo. There was a lot of admonition around "giving clients 'false' hope." It finally dawned on me that if we were to offer clients hope, especially any spiritual hope, that might contradict neo-Marxist underpinnings of wokeness and slow the destruction of current "oppressive systems." At least that is my surmise. But clients desperately want and need hope.
What a sad story, Kathy! What ended up happening? Did you find a program that would take you? How sad that even chaplaincy programs are this infected with neo Marxist ideology! Was the program that you were rejected from known to be part of a more mainline or liberal denomination? I’m wondering if even more conservative theological schools are becoming this way. I’ve thought of doing a chaplaincy program myself and I’m interested in prison ministry, so this is relevant to me.
I eventually found a Clinical Pastoral Education administrator who would take me at another hospital who was more open-minded. However, it was very far away, and I eventually chose another path rather than official chaplaincy. But there are also several organizations that prepare chaplain candidates for Board certification and some are more conservative, and grads of more conservative seminaries tend to choose them. There seems to be a lot of rivalry between the various certifying organizations. Before going through all the hoops to become Board Certified, you might look into the requirements for prison chaplaincy in your state. In New York state, where I live, you have to be an ordained minister to serve as a chaplain in the state prisons. In the Federal prisons, you can't be above the age of 32 or something like that, because of the pension system. I worked as a volunteer in education programs in prisons before even thinking of chaplaincy, and when you do one-on-one tutoring, or resume training, or get on a visiting list for prisoners without families, or do anything that brings you into personal contact wiith inmates, you are already doing chaplaincy because they need to talk. You might also consider starting a Houses of Healing (book and program) program with a group or even one inmate, if you can convince the admins in a local prison. an can also be done by correspondence. That's a rather good program. I've found there are many ways to do chaplaincy, aside from an official position. I find myself doing it just in the course of my life a few times a month. I also belong to the New York State Chaplain Task Force, which required a 10-week online raining, which i thought was actually better and much more practical than what I got in the Clinical Pastoral Education program. (I feel those were mostly hoops to jump through...) There is also a national organization called THe US Chaplain Task Force, if you're not in New York State. The first level of that qualifies you as a (volunteer) "field operative." Whenever i do any kind of chaplaincy, I ignore everything I learned in my CPE training program, esp. the part about avoiding the encouragement of hope. If you have the personality and heart for chaplaincy, i think you will train yourself as you go along. As part of good chaplaincy, I also find asking the right questions is also key to getting people talking productively. I also recommend a book called "Healing the Wounds of Trauma - How the Church Can Help" which also is part of a pretty good training program for churches. And churches also can do various kinds of prison ministry...
Thank you so much for all this information, Kathy. It was so kind of you to write all this! I’m currently working with others from my church to try to get approved to go into the local women’s prison, but it’s taking a long time for the prison to review our applications. I was already thinking that it would probably be better to do this than to become an official chaplain, and both of your comments have helped to convince me that this is true. I will check out the resources that you mentioned. Again, thank you so much for all of your advice and helpful information. May God bless you and your ministry.
Candid, informative, and practical. My own experience underscores your view. After four decades of therapeutic work with families and young adults (from a humanistic and faith-based approach), I wanted to volunteer my services in the face of great need. After several interviews, a common (yet civil) response emerged: I was too old and not diverse enough (racially and philosophically)
OMG. What a waste of your potential. (Is there any chance you could volunteer in a prison? The prisons are not yet so woke, and faith-based prison programs are also mostly not. Even just signing up to visit someone or corresponding with someone if that's a possibility. They ALL need to talk to someone. (humanistic and faith-based will get you far in this population)
Thank you for your suggestion. I will reflect upon it. Yes, most often active listening will do.
The author is an extraordinarily good and courageous writer who levels the woke academic colony with a steely ironworkers gaze.
It is encouraging to hear his report at the end that despite the incredible embeddedness of this philosophy that he sees hope for it to be purged from the temples of our academic edifices.
Similar to the field of education, it sounds like psychology could use someone like you, someone who might actually know something about the real world and isn't afraid to ask questions. From my own personal experience, I am partial to CBT as its' focus is practical solutions to real problems and isn't steeped in ideology, from what I've seen. Best of luck.
Thought-provoking article. What I would appreciate from the author is a description of what he would like to see more of, or get more of, from graduate school. For the sake of building a better future for all of us, I always welcome opinions that offer a critique followed by suggestions of what would be more helpful. Makes sense?
I would like to see more course cirriculum be something other than extremely woke and left leaning. I would like the average university that is teaching any youngish, impressionable kids all the way up to those of us who are older remove the easily identifiable leftist terms. I would just love it if the education system weren't obnoxiously skewed and leftist.
It's not even liberal anymore, it's hardcore leftist radical. I applaud Bari Weiss and her cohorts in the University of Austin experiment. But how long can that stay neutral in a city like that?
But all of these wishes of mine (and others) come down to pissing in the wind with the early schooling years being woke and some 90% or more of college professors left leaning, some absolutely unhinged.
I think the only way for anything to change is for young classical liberals and conservatives to go into education and become the teachers they wish were there now. Is that possible? Dunno!
In the course of my work as a newspaper publisher before I retired, and in general reading since, I've frequently come across articles and phraseology that made no sense to me. For a long time, I thought I lacked the background or knowledge to comprehend what I was reading.
Now I've come to understand that a lot of this stuff is just so much highfalutin' crap, a word salad tossed together with no cohesiveness and no "deeper meaning" by people who think they're clever, smart and/or more knowledgeable. They're actually charlatans.
Communication puts an obligation on the "teller" to be comprehensible, not convoluted. If a concept can't be understood, the author is quite likely to be at fault, often because s/he has no understanding of the subject themselves.
As usual, a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon sums this up perfectly...Calvin notes to Hobbes that the purpose of writing is "to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning and inhibit clarity. With a little practice, writing can become an intimidating and impenetrable fog".
He then shows Hobbes his book report titled "The Dynamics of Interbeing and Monological Imperatives in Dick and Jane. A study in psychic transrelational gender modes", while stating "academia, here I come!"
Have you subscribed to "Radically Genuine" - you might like him. I think he's a psychologist (as opposed to a psychiatrist).
I think there's some group called critical therapy antidote or something which is trying to do what your profession used to try to do
Great writing - brave subject! Thank you for your insight.
So spot on! Social Work suffers from the same problem. My politics are pretty far left, but the current turn to strict ideology instead of open thinking and debate about ideas has changed the profession- and not for the better. Thankfully, I retire in 10 days.
Some nuance is needed. For instance most science has no cross-section with either the right or left and thus is neutral. And from what I gather, the more conservative scientific outlets are equally if not more biased than what you see on the left. The problem becomes, if the left is wrong does not mean the right is right. And vice versa. Yes psychology in particular has undergone quite a bit of ideological capture. But you can't in any way state that this accounts for most psychological science as most output of science have nothing to do with any kind of politics. But I agree with you on the point that at least psychology education is very left-leaning and elitist and I have wanted to do developmental science a few years back but there where a few mandetory classes that I could not tolerate as they where so heavily skewed in nonscientific ideological drivel that I no longer wish to do any social science master. If I ever where to go back to doing a master and PhD it would be in developmental biology or molecular biology. But for financial reasons it's unlikely and I do get your point. Social science is very much not compatible with blue collar people as it is very much a silo isolated from real life.
Which scientific outlets are conservative and more biased than what is on the left?
Every single professional psych organization that I researched had DEI or something woke in their mission statements or "about us" pages. I did not research every single professional psych organization in existence, but after clicking through quite a few and seeing the same thing over and over, I think it's a fair assessment to say that the world of professional and educational psychology is beyond left leaning and woke. Go look at the the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry website. It's the most terrifying thing imaginable, considering it is supposed to be an organization helping children.
At this point, there are so many interviews, articles and accounts of psychologists admitting to what has happened to the profession and how scary it's become. Megyn Kelly has done interviews, Dr. Drew has told stories, The Free Press has published articles, Michael Shellenberger. I honestly didn't think saying the world of psychology as a whole had become woke would get even the slightest pushback. But there are always surprises!
While much actual scientific research (especially in the “harder” sciences like physics) does not lend itself to ideological bias, the environment in which much of it is conducted (academia) definitely skews left. And this does lead to nonsensical publications about “feminist theories of glaciation” and such. Not to mention people from formerly respectable institutions elevating the construct of “gender identity” over the biological fact of sex.
I read ya. The hard sciences SHOULD be less captured, but look at what happened during covid! If you didn't go along with every single narrative that was the "official word" of the era, you were canceled, deplatformed and in some cases fired or threatened with legal action.
I have gotten to know Dr. Scott Jensen who ran against Tim Walz in 22 here in MN and once he started speaking out against a lot of the covid policies at the time, the State of MN tried to have his medical license revoked on 6 occasions I believe.
But yes, something like physics would seem hard to slant ideologically, I bet it wouldn't take long to find a Harvard or Yale study that claims gravity is racist?!?! Shall we see who can find one first?? Ready.... GO!
Thanks for speaking up. I recently tried to find a therapist on Psychology Today. Their filtering system allows you to search by racial identity, gender identity & sexual orientation. Which is fine...I can see why there might be a need for identity-based concordance between therapist and patient. Except for one thing..."White/Caucasian", "Cisgender", and "Heterosexual" are conveniently left out of the search terms. So if you identify as one of these, you do NOT have the option to search for a therapist who matches your identity. I made a complaint about this to the NYC Commission on Human Rights. After 4 months of back-and-forth with the Commission, they recently sent Psychology Today a letter asking them to change this.
By the very reading and the language of the bill it was indeed to not say gay. It was indeed bands on speech and books. Any blue collar red blooded American that has any love for the First Amendment would not endure such a bill especially when the people on the floor out of themselves that this was indeed to suppress. The issue of whether or not these educational institutions to Thomas on it I think there is a point. What comes to the point is that there's a miscommunication. And especially to treat Trump supporters I think you should have focused on that if it were a pathology. On how they said that. I do not understand why you seem to meander from your central point and give any sort of credence to the disgustingly sensorial legislation that should be opposed by both the right and the left on principle
We so need more perspectives like this, thank you for sharing your experience.