Handling A Bad Faith Actor or Becoming A Bad Faith Actor By Not Going Immediately On The Offensive?

If you're new to my blog, let me warn you I have a factual-philosophical, mercurial neurodivergent communication style, and I can be hard for some to follow.

There's a reason why certain philosophical-ideological views stay hidden behind closed doors. Why we are always like, "How can people still think this is acceptable?" It's because it's been happening since seemingly forever, and instead of talking about and eliminating it, we make things a taboo subject that people cannot discuss. And that allows for such views to stay, fester, and thrive in the darkness of society. The fact that the person asked the question doesn't surprise me. The fact that they, one, asked it on air, and two, that Dean being shocked that one would seriously ask is what surprised me. Problems don't get solved by sweeping them under a rug and forbidding conversation, because forbidding conversations leads to forbidding corrective action.

Even with this, Dean assumes the defense is unserious, and that is majorly problematic because modern history shows that morality said raping one's wife was acceptable only 60 years ago, and people are still fighting for the right to have traditional marriages back ever since. I mean, for Christ's sake, the whole Epstein scandal is nothing but a large group of people who found it acceptable. Never assume someone who shows to be morally abhorrent, just because you think they're a troll or bad faith actor, when they could have a coherent (to them) moral framework that needs addressing. Society has a consensus bias due to the system's indoctrination creating a false consensus effect, inducing cognitive dissonance within humanity. I'm not a psychologist, but there are conversations that actually weaken rather than strengthen abhorrent positions; it's defeatism to say otherwise.

I'm not gonna tribalism this, except to say, coming from America, defeatism is a way of life when it comes to taking action to halt or eliminate philosophical and ideological topics and actions. Guilty until proven innocent in certain cases. "You cannot say that; we live in a democracy." Great, then I assume you'll be advocating for the abolition of the "believe all women" movement? No, because you're being subjective on what can be guilty until proven innocent. Pedo? You need proof. Rapist of a woman? No proof needed; prove you're innocent. Twisted and fucked up logic, again, this is the mentality I speak of...

Tired of people being passive because they don't think they can win, or that their single action will be irrelevant; especially those with platforms to speak on and challenge. And I'm posting this because instead of taking on what I am saying, people are going to straight defense of Dean for how the clip shows him handling it, saying it was a topic for private discussion or that would be going off topic; I'm sure he's argued against Christian Nationalism, and talk of Epstein is talking about people who think it's acceptable. What happened to the opinion from Trump's first presidency, "We are what we tolerate, guilty by association"? That seemed to have run out the window with Tara Reade and Gaza... I don't know, maybe this is my neurodivergencies causing me to reach a different logical and reasoning standard that neurotypicals miss.

For context, click the link:

Dean Withers had a caller ask why raping children was morally bad/wrong on his radio podcast.