I think it is sometimes interesting to take a question or a seeming paradox and turn it around and make it a statement and even an axiom. Per your saying that you honestly don't understand guilt-by-association: I assume that is because it makes no sense. But it may be illuminating to give the perplexing proposition an unequivocal state…
I think it is sometimes interesting to take a question or a seeming paradox and turn it around and make it a statement and even an axiom. Per your saying that you honestly don't understand guilt-by-association: I assume that is because it makes no sense. But it may be illuminating to give the perplexing proposition an unequivocal statement: "I believe in guilt by association. It makes sense to me." Then you have the consistent thread running through everything Chimp said. Your guilt is established by your refusal to condemn J. K. Rowling, whose guilt is established to Chimp's entire satisfaction by HER association with -- i.e., her refusal to condemn -- still OTHER people, and this in spite of her clear record supporting gay rights and even trans rights. You show great patience attempting to reason with him, but in his mind nothing you say or do can get you out from under your guilt, which is open-and-shut based on your associations.
If we contrast his absolute certainty about you with your interest in trying to understand him, we have a microcosm of the national divide and a clue to why the wrong side is winning: people are strongly attracted by narcissistic confidence and certitude.
I think it is sometimes interesting to take a question or a seeming paradox and turn it around and make it a statement and even an axiom. Per your saying that you honestly don't understand guilt-by-association: I assume that is because it makes no sense. But it may be illuminating to give the perplexing proposition an unequivocal statement: "I believe in guilt by association. It makes sense to me." Then you have the consistent thread running through everything Chimp said. Your guilt is established by your refusal to condemn J. K. Rowling, whose guilt is established to Chimp's entire satisfaction by HER association with -- i.e., her refusal to condemn -- still OTHER people, and this in spite of her clear record supporting gay rights and even trans rights. You show great patience attempting to reason with him, but in his mind nothing you say or do can get you out from under your guilt, which is open-and-shut based on your associations.
If we contrast his absolute certainty about you with your interest in trying to understand him, we have a microcosm of the national divide and a clue to why the wrong side is winning: people are strongly attracted by narcissistic confidence and certitude.