RE: Voluntaryism: Do the Ends Justify the Means?
This is nothing against Larken, but what I like about Adam is the way that he approaches the issues in a non threatening way. He gives the other person's point of view respect, let the interviewee say their bit, and then responds with a deep philosophical question about what they just said. They are either stunned, giving it some thought or they run away. I would like to see how a nationally televised audience would react to Adam's personality and his message. It can only do some good. Of course after that, if Adam even gets there, they will have to eliminate the threat.
Larken's approach, although very well laid out and articulated, is however a bit more intimidating. And some people will instinctively turn off on just for that reason alone, regardless of how true Larken's point is.
I have a number of friends who I've shared Larken's videos with who have done exactly that. I try to discuss the content with them, but they get turned off by the delivery. Personally, I love Larken's approaches because he calls bullshit every where he sees it and completely without apology. I think the world not only needs more of that, but they need to get out of their safe spaces enough to learn how to deal with it and respond respectfully.
As Larken pointed out in his post, Adam can get flustered and emotional as well. We all can. No one is perfect. That said, he does an amazing job with the many videos I've seen of him confronting people or being confronted and using NVC.
I don't think its so much getting into a safe space but rather the subconscious mind using it as an excuse to not have to dismantle it's possible false internal belief structure.
Yeah, I agree. There's a whole lot of cognitive dissonance that comes up when people's core principles about what is "good" (nationalist, voting, authority, etc) and what is "bad" (anarchy, no government, etc) gets questioned.