tallslenderguy

i've broached this topic on BZ a wee bit before, and have seen a few discussions over the years. No doubt to me that gay relationships have a lot of differences from traditional hetero, this particular thread is not so much about that, but more about how the process of finding someone, for more than a hookup, is affected by so much of our interactions being online. i have an ongoing desire/effort to have a more special intimate relationship beyond just hooking up. Hooking up is fine, but to me, hooking up is to relationship as fast-food is to dining. What this thread is more specifically about is the number of scammers (for lack of a better term) who try to take advantage of those looking for more than a hook up. in my experience, these guys do not engage in (much if any) talk about sex. Which to me, in a gay setting, is a red flag lol. They are usually the profiles claiming to be "serious, looking for love, their soulmate, ltr, etc.." i've noticed that "scammers" often seem to be working from a similar, if not the same, script. A lot of what you get from them seems copied, cut and pasted. Which to me speaks of some sort of organized group effort vs some random individual out to con and exploit. i am noticing an evolution of scamming via the relationship channel, and yesterday my suspicion of something more organized going on, was confirmed. i was having an exchange with a potential connection and he was doing a good job of it. i was still suspicious, but this guy was way better than most of my encounters. Enough for me to continue with several exchanges. Then, he mistakenly sent me something that exposed what he was doing (i'll do a cut and paste of it below in yellow). It became obvious at first because the wrong name was used (and he knew my first name at this point, my name is not "Roger"). But more than that, what was evident is this guy was sharing my side of the conversation with someone else, a supervisor or coach? in order to construct a manipulative response to me. i was surprised and bemused that there would be this level of sophistication from a scammer? That, again, online scamming is becoming much more than some individual on the net trying to scam, that it's becoming more organized, refined, sophisticated. Check it out: Wow — Roger really poured his heart out here. He’s offering deep vulnerability, philosophical thought, and a desire for true connection. Here’s a romantic, heartfelt, and intimate response you could send that meets him where he’s at, honors his openness, and continues building that emotional bond: ⸻ Hi Roger, Reading your message felt like opening a window into your soul — and it’s a beautiful place. I’m genuinely moved by how deeply you think and feel, and by how courageously you put your heart into words. That kind of self-awareness and vulnerability isn’t just rare, it’s magnetic. Your puzzle analogy is so on point. Relationships are like building a picture out of pieces — some fit easily, some need adjusting, and others we don’t even know we’re missing until the right person brings them to the table. I think you’re absolutely right: love isn’t just something we “fall” into — it’s something we build, carefully, intentionally, and with a deep understanding of ourselves and each other. And that takes work, honesty, and a willingness to stay present even when it’s hard. What you shared about the energy between Top and bottom — that blend of emotional, physical, and even spiritual connection — gave me chills in the best way. I don’t think it was crude at all. In fact, I think it was incredibly poetic. You’re describing a kind of intimacy that transcends the physical act — something soulful, mutual, powerful. I feel the depth of what you’re yearning for, and I resonate with it. That kind of merging, of becoming known and received in all your fullness — that’s rare, and absolutely worth seeking. Your passion for your work shines, too. The way you talk about your team, your patients, your love of physiology — it’s clear that you’re someone who gives of yourself fully. Teaching hospitals have a different energy, and you’re right — that collaborative spirit makes such a difference. It’s amazing that you’ve been in the same ICU for 11 years — it speaks volumes about your commitment and the trust you’ve built. And I agree — the system can feel cold and bureaucratic, but the heart of healthcare will always be people like you. I’ve worked with labs in various settings across Oregon — both urban and more rural hospitals. I manage testing operations, quality systems, and help coordinate with departments like yours to make sure critical results get turned around fast. I’ve always admired nurses, especially ICU — you juggle so much, and the emotional weight of the job is something most people don’t see. It’s a calling, not just a career. Also — thank you for sharing your journey. You’ve seen and experienced a lot, moved through life with a quiet resilience that I really admire. Your insight into love — about how it gets tangled up in sacrifice and obligation, especially when shaped by religion — that resonated so much. It’s something I’ve wrestled with, too: the tension between what we’re taught love should be, and what we actually need it to be to feel whole. And that quote you live by — grace, forgiveness, kindness — I feel that deeply. I try to live by those principles too. They’re what hold everything together when life inevitably gets messy. You asked what feeds my soul — I think the answer is exactly what we’re doing right now. Real conversation. Depth. Emotional intimacy. The feeling of being seen, and of seeing someone else in return. It’s rare, and it means more than I can say that you’re opening yourself up to me this way. I feel it, and I’m grateful for it. Also, I love that you make soup — that tells me a lot about your spirit. Warm, generous, nourishing. Let’s keep this going. There’s so much more I want to know about you. With warmth and admiration, Derrick Apparently what happened is this scammer mistakenly copied and pasted his response and mistakenly neglected to insert my name. What really surprised me was that he was getting coaching from someone else (as evident in the first two lines), that someone else actually wrote the response, not the scammer, which again indicates a more sophisticated scamming effort. i confronted him, and he continued to lie and tried to back peddle... typical of scammers, so i just stopped. What i am really curious about though is knowing their intent? The obvious would be money, but we had some deep exchange that he actually responded to, in more than a cursory way, in the course of our exchange. In a way, it felt like i was an unknowing participant in a study.

i think you add some good points to the mix... but also i think even intelligent people are vulnerable to emotional manipulation, and both sides seem more than happy to engage in manipulation. Either way we slice it, voting involves a degree of trust. If i am being honest, i have to admit i do not understand the complexities of international trade. Meanwhile, i do not have the trust that Trump understands or has our best interest at heart. His approach seems vindictive vs well thought out with understanding. He just seems a bully to me, an approach he takes to all of his relationships. "America first" to me is just an extension of trumps me first attitude. i've always been health conscious, read stuff, tried to be informed. Then, 13 years ago, i went back to school and got a BSN. i did not realize what i didn't know until i became more educated. It was an awakening. Now as a critical care nurse, i continuously encounter people who push back against doctors, nurses, pharmacists, physical therapists, ________, because of something they read on the internet or saw on youtube. Many of these are intelligent, educated people, but they do not have a scientific or medical education, so they do not realize how much knowledge and background it takes to reach a diagnosis. Even if the information is from a good source, it doesn't mean that the info is being applied correctly. Again, trust factors in. i wish for leaders and politicians who can express their own flaws and weaknesses... because we all have them. i think the reason government should only make collective policy decisions is because no on person knows enough. That trump wants to be the final say in everything makes me cringe at the insecurity of an ego that has to always be right and in charge. No one has that capacity.

Looking at word meaning evolution is an interesting topic to me too. Words can connect or divide us since they are a main method of communication. i think online interaction has taken communication so many different places, very suddenly in an evolutionary sense? Just this discussion, between guys from all over the world with often vastly different cultural backgrounds, demonstrates how differently we can all see the same word, how it makes us feel and think. To me, it's a good flag to help us recognize and be conscious of the ever present influence of ethnocentricity. And, hopefully can help us step back and consider another perspective vs indulging in the superior, isolating attitudes and notions that often come with ego/ethnocentricity. I.e., actually communicate and connect.

Before becoming a critical care nurse, i built and ran a pretty successful business that involved a great deal of marketing. On the side, i restored and flipped houses. While Trump may be in the real estate business, to me he is comparable to those who would market the Brooklyn bridge. I.e., He repeatedly makes outrageous claims and doesn't deliver.

i feel we are on the same page in the same book on this? That i only failed to clearly state my thoughts and perspective in what i wrote. Where i try to simplify my qualification for "fundamentalist/fundamentism" approach to anything, is the distinction i make between "belief" and "knowledge." To me, belief has elements of faith, but also has a dose of self doubt. Not talking wishy, washy non principled self doubt, but the openness and understanding that "we know and see in part." i actually endeavor to follow what i see as principles of love as a guiding beacon, or anchor, in my life. Some would be surprised that i take that from the bible from 1 Corinthians 13 (aka in some circles as: "the love chapter"). Perhaps this makes me an example of someone who can take something sincerely and seriously from the bible in a non-fundamentalist way. my read is, the author sets up the rationale for "love" prior to defining love (a bit). It's something i was never taught in church, but a place i arrived at after years of trying to understand love and how to pull it off? The (or maybe better "a") "rationale" for love is that "we see through a glass darkly.... we know and see in part." i love the King James translation of that because "glass" in KJ's time was dark and distorted, wavy stuff. It was used both as a mirror and a window, so my read is: when we look in a mirror and self reflect, we see and know our self in part. When we look at another , we know and see in part. To me, it's the foundational understanding that "we know and see in part" that maintains the humility of self doubt. For instance, to me, you are not being "fundamentalist" because you wrote this exhibiting the ability to question your self and the humility to be open about it. To me, a person can believe something whole heartedly and adhere to that belief for life, and not be fundamentalist... for me to say otherwise, i think, would be me indulging in 'fundamentalist approach." It's not confidence or sincerity of belief that i think is divisive, but the absolutist attitude that "I am right and you are wrong" vs I believe I am right and this is why I believe it, and I believe you are wrong and this why I believe that, but I also understand that i know and see in part, and could be wrong, but this is what i believe right now and why.

When i read your topic title originally, i thought it was too general and simplistic. There are numerous world wide examples of long term heads of state being in power, who do not represent the attitudes or wishes of all the people, or even the majority of, those who live in the country where they wield power. i work in a fairly rural teaching hospital in a college town in Oregon. The population is about 70k, but half of that is college students. i'm a critical care nurse and my guess is a good half of the people i work with voted for Trump, the other half against, yet i'd trust every one of them with my life. Now for the nuance. i'm sorta out as gay at the hospital where i work, but don't wear a rainbow flag. i've had more than a few women i work with express interest, only to have to inform them that i'm gay (i guess it doesn't show?). i've told several people i work with that i'm gay, just came up for one reason or another over a 10 year work history, but i know that there are those i work with who think gay is a disease to be healed. i would not love having one of those people caring for me, but i would still trust them to care for me in a conflicted way for them. i think there are "warm and wonderful people" in every country, that just as we cannot judge a book by its cover, we cannot completely understand or judge a countries people by its 'representatives'. i do not think that anyone anywhere in the world is completely represented by their government. i doubt that even half of those who voted for trump support him 100%. While i voted for Harris, the democrat party is far from representing me 100%. i think that is true about most people in most countries.

Would you please cite your sources of "published outcomes," and explain how and why you deem them reliable? i'd like to know who is paying these "paid protestors" and what constitutes "many?" i'm guessing it wasn't Elon Musk handing out million dollar checks in this case lol. p.s., none of this is intended as snark, i really do want to know this information.

Thank you too @PozBearWI. i think you are a wonderful part of the BZ community and i am grateful for you being here and contributing. i'm actually still in Mexico, staying at a gay resort. Lots of partying going on, but i'm not a party sort, more of a wanna sit around and discuss type... and of course, have sex. 🙂 Been walking around, a lot, feasting on street food (it's incredible). i love the Mexican culture and wonder why anyone would leave here to go to the US. i know, there are reasons, many economic, but i'm tempted to move to Mexico. i find it encouraging that Mexico elected Claudia Sheinbaum, a woman and a Jewish person. i find the vibe here to be progressive and accepting. i'm also struck by the general humility i encounter in this culture. To me, it is a strength and i believe the US benefits from immigration of Mexican people into our culture in so many ways... i think it should be encouraged, not discouraged. i appreciate and agree with your assessment of trump as a "classic schoolyard bully." He doesn't lead, he coerces and uses fear and intimidation. It was part of what i was trying to convey in another thread where i suggested some respond to trump as a 'dom.' Some perceive/equate bullying with "dom" (i think it's opposite of Dom). i think there are a lot of bullies in power in the world right now, i listed a few in my other post, and i think trump is part of the group. i think Germany is a good example of a society that healed and recovered from a bully dictator, i hope our country can do the same.

Some more thoughts. my story is all over BZ. i came out of a fundamentalist religious culture that had me tied in knots half my life. Ironically, being gay saved me from "God." i put "God" in quotes because i am not asserting that there is, or is not, a "God," what i am wanting to convey is that anyones ideas and notions of "God" are influenced by human thought and emotion, and therefore subject to error. What i learned in processing out of my conditioned fundamentalist approach to life is what i believe to be an essential factor that leads people, or gets them to agree with or support people like Trump. i label it "fundamentalist." Not the only label, and others may work better, but it's a familiar one to me because i came out of "Fundamentalist Christianity." There was a time when "fundamentalist" was generally thought of as just a "Christian" thing, dictionaries would apply it to Christianity. The further i got in my processing away from fundamentalism, the more i realized that one can probably be a "fundamentalist" anything. The central issue i see with a fundamentalist approach is the notion of absolute knowledge and correctness that i believe is at the root of people gravitating towards or choosing fundamentalism. Something that stands out to me about those who espouse a fundamentalist approach to life is, they cannot be wrong about certain things that, apparently, give them a sense of security of 'rightness.' To me, an over arching attribute of a fundamentalist person is they cannot be engaged in true discussion or debate. What that means to me is, they don't just believe they are "right," they "know" they are right. When a person enters a discussion 'knowing' they are right, they do not look or listen with a goal towards seeing or hearing discovering what actually is, but instead have a goal of asserting their rightness. Because they already 'know the truth.' i do think some who support people like Trump, or Putin or Xi Jinping or Kim Jon Un or ___________, do so because they trust in these peoples assertions of knowing or rightness. It appeals to their emotional sense of security vs following someone who admits they are flawed and can be wrong. But i do not think this is something that can be attributed to an entire population, or even a majority, in any country. i think that is way too simplistic.

"Map and List of Nationwide Anti-Trump Protests on April 19" [think before following links] https://www.newsweek.com/anti-trump-protests-us-map-list-2061036 It seems to me that the world is (very roughly) divided into two camps, often reflected in their leaders, but not always. A lot of individuals feel (and are) pretty powerless against their governments, but it does not mean they agree with them. i'm writing this from Mexico... i wanted to spend my vacation money here. i voted against trump in every way i could. What i have been wondering about it what is behind those who voted for trump? i don't solely blame stupidity or evil. i think there are stupid and evil people on both sides of the coin. i've never fully trusted my government, no matter who is in power. What sort of works is a system of checks and balances that makes it difficult for one side to have complete control. i think a lot of people voted for trump emotionally, not rationally. His core voter base is an arm of religion that bases decisions on trust. Many of these people are waiting for the return of a god, and have been waiting for 2000 years. These people have centuries of practice rejecting what is in front of them in favor of their trust in belief. To me, i see a similar energy and attitude in those who continue to support trump with emotional trust. They watch their 401K's dwindle, and they doubt their self and trust trump. Trump said he'd end the war in Ukraine in one day.... yet they still trust him. The list goes on and on, but it doesn't matter. There is a certain type of person (on both sides of the spectrum) who makes decisions based on emotional trust... and there seem to be a lot of people in power right now who are exploiting that trust. i don't think there is anything intrinsically wrong with trust, but i do think it can be exploited and violated and i think many who depend to much on trust end up being exploited. i am still hoping that our system is enough to put a halt and eventually reverse some of what is going on. Mostly i want to see president who is restricted by boundaries, right or wrong, i do not think one person should ever have the kind of power trump is taking... i do not trust anyone with that kind of power.

i connect to a Tops desire/need to penetrate, fuck and seed me. Different Guys communicate that in different ways. i have a current FB Who breeds me 3-4 times a week for the past 5 years. When i am giving Him oral, He is very verbal and expressive, till he reaches the point where He wants to nut, then He simple says: "turn over so i can fuck you." He fucks like a beast, He's a muscle guy and just naturally pounds the hell out of me, but also kisses my back and touches me in a way that feels really affectionate too, but all wordlessly. Sometimes i can tell when He nuts, other times i cannot... i'm pretty sure He keeps fucking after orgasm. Then He silently pulls out and takes a shower. Every single time. i'm usually still lying limp face down on the bed when He comes back in the room and dresses, He often asks if i'm "good." He likes to hear that i loved everything He did, and i'm pretty noisy while getting fucked... just comes out. The fact that He keeps coming back (He always initiates) speaks volumes. As far as random hook ups? If i feel His lust when He penetrates, fucks and leaves a part of Himself in me, that's all i need or want. i want His pleasure, release inside of me, more than words after.

Shrugs.... who knows. So much bias seems rooted in ego/ethno centricity to me. "Geezer" is derogatory, and the quoted user was associating those who use the word "cock" with being a dreaded geezer. i feel like so many such declarations are just an attempt to elevate ones status as somehow better because of age? or use of a identifier? Seems kinda of a waste to me for a person to have contempt for another because they use the word "cock?" i pretty much adapt to whatever term the Top Who wants to penetrate, fuck and breed me uses. What i connect to is the intent and goal more than the identifier. "The slang use of cock 'penis' began in at least the early 17th century, being recorded in Beaumont and Fletcher's The Custom of the Country around 1619. There are two theories behind this evolution, the first associating the arrogance and cockiness of roosters with human men as well by using cock to describe an explicitly male part of the body. The other theory claims that it was a humorous adaptation of a more obscure, 15th century definition of cock: 'the spout or short pipe serving as channel to pass liquids through, a faucet.'" [think before following links] https://word-ancestry.livejournal.com/74404.html "The term “dick” has been a euphemism for the penis since at least as far back as the 19th century. Cassell’s Dictionary of Slang dates the “penis” sense of the word to the mid-19th century. Two other sources, the Oxford English Dictionary and the Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang, give citations from 1891 and 1888, respectively. But sexual slang, with its euphemistic character and its tendency to show up in speech long before it appears in print, is hard to pin down. Though there’s no solid evidence that “dick” meant “penis” before the 19th century, one scholar has suggested that the usage might have been around much further back, in the 14th century." [think before following links] https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2011/01/dick.html

This guy is a commentator on China, and more particularly, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). He is from the US and with a friend who originally came from S. Africa, does another pod cast called The China Show. They both lived in China for many years and traveled the entire country on motorcycles and did a sort of cultural travelog that i've watched for several years. They were there for many changes, both have Chinese wives. They got kicked out of China a few years ago, but still have friends who send them info from the inside, so they show things that mainstream media does not, but they do have a different perspective knowing the language and having lived there for so long, as well as having family and friends in China still.

i agree with this and would add that i think emotions are a "fact" of being human. We often argue over things the reasoning part of our brain perceives as facts, only to discover later on we were wrong, that the earth really isn't flat. We are finite beings who often make absolute conclusions because it does something to satisfy us emotionally. Growing up, i was conditioned by an often subtle cultural notion that "men are rational and women are emotional." i used to be a corporate executive in a mostly male dominated environment. i watched as, time and again, male business leaders made decisions based in emotion but hidden behind a facade of reason and rationale. Then in mid life, i became a nurse and now am part of a mostly female dominated environment. It exposed my own conditioned bias noted above. i found the nurses i worked with to be some of the most rational people i've ever known. i think the challenge is learning how to be self aware, understand and process our feelings. i think a lot of cultures condition males to deny their emotions rather than learn how to understand and process them as part of who and how we are. Everyone has emotion, it's built in to our brains. If evolutionary theory is correct, our emotional brain was the first part of the brain to evolve, and our senses still funnel all input through the emotional part of our brain before it gets to the reasoning part of our brain.

i appreciate the comments and feedback. i think the arrow votes are emotional expression, "emojis." People who rely on them solely, who use them while avoiding verbal comment or explanation, come off to me as wanting to be offensive without the risk of response. Sort of a ring and run, or sucker punch. Engagement is challenging and risky, vulnerable, especially where there is disagreement.

I think You are right. Another more recent would be Mark Twain.

i'm wondering why people use down vote arrows in a discussion forum setting? i get using upvote arrows, because it's an agreement or approval of what has already been said, but a down arrow with no explanation of why? i can speculate, but that will only be me reflecting myself, i'd rather understand from those who use them. i'm curious to hear from those who use down votes? Especially using them without including a response or explanation giving their own particular views as to why, given the opportunity, in a discussion forum?

i find it ironic that, to me, some of the best political commentary today comes from comedians: Steven Colbert, John Oliver, Jon Stewart. i loved this discussion between conservative Oren Cass and Jon Stewart on tariffs and the economy. This, to me, is what has been buried in current polarized discussion in America today, and a place we need to get back to. Middle ground. i think dissent is a good thing for both sides to be able to practice, and honestly, i think it's supposed to be the American way. Anyway, i appreciated these two sitting down and discussing this topic, thought it appropriate for what's going to transpire at 4 pm EST today.

Left about 20 minutes ago... then had to run outdoors and cut and edge the lawn before it rains. That's about the happiest lawn mowing experience i've ever had. my FB... idk, i think he may have a thing for me, He bred me every day last week when i wasn't working. He's wanted to breed me on work days too, but after 13 shifts i'm worthless. He on the other hand will work all day doing heavy construction, come over and fuck me like a wild beast, then go a lift weights for 2 hours afterwards. We've definitely morphed over 5 years of 3-5x a week sex. It's the longest ive ever had a FB, and it never gets old. He's so verbal when i'm doing oral on Him, totally keeps me ramped up with His obvious pleasure, then always finishes with breeding my ass... and damn, He's soooooo good. Mysteriously quiet when He's fucking, though His hands and kisses on my back communicate a lot. Pretty sure i'm pregnant.

Just left... third day i a row. Guy does a 2 hour work out every day after work, then either wants to breed before or after the workout. It's year 5 that He's my FB, and it's changed up a little, but always ends with Him breeding me. He loves to be sucked and rimmed, and His body is a solid rock of muscle. It seems the more i suck and rim Him the more primal He becomes when He fucks me, this massive muscle guy just pounding the fuck out of my ass, but then He touches and holds me at the same time in a very gentle way, kisses my back.... it's a crazy making mix for me, drives me kinda wild and i have all sorts of sounds coming out of me as i grasp at the headboard and bite my mattress. He keeps wrecking my hole and leaving me wanting to drip... but i hold it all in. love absorbing Him.

i was going to start a new thread with this, but i think it can fit here.

nanana, i so appreciated your response to my response, both here and back channel. For me, it was near perfect because of the degree of openness and vulnerability you showed. It's likely just semantics, but i don't think the issue is one of "turning science into a faith," as it is turning science into a religion? my guess is we likely agree, semantics aside? i grew up religiously conditioned and it took me half my life to process out of it. my belief was conditioned, but sincere. i think what often passes as "faith" is really the opposite. In my case, i was conditioned by a fundamentalist mind set (which i have since found can be a part of any 'ism') that, though it uses the verbiage and makes claims of faith, instead equates belief with knowledge. And not just progressive type knowledge that science (ideally?) pursues, but an absolutist notion of knowledge that ends up making human perception into a 'God.' my process did not lead me to a place of disbelief but to a place where i could honestly and openly see and say: "i don't know__________." Neither belief or disbelief, but a but a place of ongoing, open inquiry. That has been the most freeing thing in my life. When i was nearing the end of my process out of a fundamentalist approach to life, i found an email address for Noam Chomsky one day and sent him an email. He responded... the same day. We had several emails back and forth, and one of the comments he made was: "it's impossible to live without faith" and he went on to explain that he put's "faith" in the scientific process, but i detected no religious zeal, rather a comfort level that allows for questioning and not "knowing." His parents were both religious scholars, and he decided to go a different direction when he was only 13 years old. Which is really a tangent to why i bring this up. He helped my in my process out of fundamentalism, not because of that comment, that was a place i had already come to on my own, but because of who and how he is/was. i threw myself into religion at the age of 14 when i realized i am attracted to guys, and religious conditioning was the only 'answer' i knew. i sought out "God" always, and solely for many years (which in the end ended up freeing me from 'God' -another story). At some points in my attempts to de-gay, i sought out the help of religious authorities, writing letters where i poured myself out, and never, not once, got a response. Fundamentalist christianity teaches that there is nothing "good" or "loving" apart from "God" (i.e., their idea of "God"), and yet none of these people displayed kindness or love or had answers that would help me conform to their/my conditioned notions of "God." On the other hand, this complete stranger who had every reason to dismiss me and not worth part of his busy schedule, instead was open and kind and vulnerable with me. It wasn't anything he said, but who and how he was that ended up exposing and obliterating the conditioned notion that only those who 'properly follow God' are capable of wonderful things like good and love.

In keeping with the site (and situation?) i confess your response gave me a hard on... have fun considering that one coming from a guy who generally feels/seems wired 'total bottom.' Really my version of a "hard on" is being attracted to a guy in a way where i'd like to be impregnated by him and thereby connected/bonded to him... i now feel engaged and accessed by you vs shunned, locked out, judged. You received what i wrote so beautifully, and exercised grace towards my flaws and ragged edges. i love the written word, but i also realize that much of our human communication relies on other senses like tone, visuals. The lack of those can become pitfalls when it comes to written exchange. It's so easy to put our own voice, tone on something written instead of being "LESS judging." i try and want to remember that in any given moment, i have, we all have, the choice of being an ass or an angel, or an infinite combination and variations of those mixed. i believe things like "pompous" are not a permanent state for me or anyone else, but a momentary choice, and maybe more often than not, a reflexive vs reflective expression? i don't doubt that you have friends who like you, my guess is they have experience this 'side' of you. Your explanation of "one of [your]... reasons" makes sense to me, and i find myself taking your idea and applying it to the video. I.e., maybe disect it more thoroughly and try to parse out the 'good' and 'bad?' For instance, i think she did a stellar job being non partisan. i found myself undecided after watching it whether she voted Republican or Democrat. And in that respect, i found my self smiling at your question of where the listener lands (i.e., identifying as of smart and not one of 'them' stupid people). i felt like her inclusion of self (should probably watch it again) managed to make her argument for critical thinking universal vs partisan. But then, i tend towards hope and optimism, so it could be my own voice-over i heard. i agree that we live in a highly charged environment right now, so ditto "difficult." One of the things i love about the pure scientific approach is the acknowledgment that there is no such thing. That "this is what we (think) we know right now, but (always and forever) further studies are needed." To me, the joy and benefit of honest debate is the tacit understanding that either or both can be wrong or right or a combination. We are finite living in an infinite universe (it seems given current perspective?) It's an open eye and ear approach, meaning we are still looking and listening vs trying to force an absolutist attitude, and incumbent ideology, on our self or anyone else. i work in healthcare, so i'm faced with the wonders and flaws of science on a routine basis. i often express to patients that medicine is often killing an ant with an elephant gun. i love the Star Trek character Dr McCoy who is often declaring medical practices from our generation as "barbaric." A good example is sepsis. We know what it looks like, and it's a deadly condition. When someone presents with the usual suspect symptoms, our first response is to take blood (for culturing), then to give fluids, and then we blitz the person with broad spectrum antibiotics. We are learning that those antibiotics also kill of scads of beneficial bacteria in our gut that we live in symbiosis with. But sepsis is deadly. If we don't use this shotgun, the person dies. Two days later, the cultures may help us refine our antibiotic approach, but it's not ever a specific bullet to the head of just one offender, it's just less broad spectrum. So the notion of "do no harm" is a nice dream and goal, but the truth is, we know and see in part. i think this is true about life in general. i think we all, ultimately, have to stand by our self assessment in order to qualify as a functioning individual. As i see it, that is part of what gives you value for the rest of us... and vice versa.