>>11901816 (lb)
Is the MSM covering it?
Scott Adams may just be drawing eyes on. Would be better to go iffy with indies. That would tend to get them to watch and make their own judgement.
Better than not watching at all.
I know if I get bored and try a political affiliation test online, I come out about middle of the road, but with extreme outliers left or right on specific issues.
If I get judged by someone as being left or right across the board because of my position on one specific issue I won't interact with them.
I'm not going to be bought in to that occasional outlier enough that I would waste any energy trying to defend it. It might just be an idiosyncrasy of mine, and that isn't worth being a hill to die on. If some one is so consumed by some kind of conviction that they want to make an issue of it, that's their problem.
Agree with what you're saying. I think many people will accept an argument, even if they may have a "thing" about it, if it's presented in a way that doesn't attack their entire world view based on an idiosyncrasy they may have.
Not too many presenters out there who are capable of doing it, though. Scott most likely an asset in this regard, IMO.