I don’t understand why we cannot disagree with each other without saying we have evil intent. Someone can be stupid and think that homosexuals would make good or bad parents without wanting children harmed. I really believe that (I think other people might have nefarious reasons for their desire to have homosexual parents, but that is another issue). However, it has gotten to where we cannot simply disagree without calling into question the other person’s desire to hurt others, especially children or the weak.
If I may, please let me attempt to explain what I believe is going on.
In the 70s, a Yale psych professor named Irving Janis developed eight groupthink behaviors. The left siezed on these behaviors and adopted them as a templated strategy to keep their membership from venturing away from group consensus.
Here are the behaviors, but recast as commandments. It can be easily imagined these hang on the wall of every progressive/liberal media figure.
See "IV" in particular
I Thou shalt create an illusion of invulnerability shared by most members to foster excessive optimism and encourage extreme risks taking
II Thou shall not allow any member to question the group’s inherent morality, instead members shall be encouraged to ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions
III Thou shalt promote collective efforts to rationalize in order to discount warnings, or other information that might lead members to reconsider their assumptions before they recommit themselves to their assumptions
IV Thou shalt reinforce stereotyped views of enemy leaders as too evil to warrant genuine attempts to negotiate, or as too weak and stupid to counter whatever risky attempts are made to defeat their purpose
V Thou shalt self-censor any deviation from the apparent group consensus, inclining each member to minimize the importance of their doubts and counterarguments
VI Thou shalt create and maintain a shared illusion of unanimity concerning judgement conforming to the majority view
VII Thou shalt apply direct pressure on any member who expresses strong arguments against any of the group’s stereotypes, illusions, or commitments, making clear that this type of dissent is contrary to what is expected of all loyal members
VIII Thou shalt appoint mindguards to protect the group from adverse information that might shatter their shared complacency about the effectiveness and morality of their decisions.
Regards,
Eddie