| One thing I always admired about the Playboy mag (apart from it's Centerfolds, of course; that WAS its raison d'etre, non? And yes: I DID read [well, some of] the articles): It was clearly non-partisan re any type of ideology (it's publisher's obvious prefs nwst) re its Interviews.|
--- It was (haven't, uh, 'read' it, lately) akin (as *I* see it) to, believe it or not, C-SPAN 's morning call-in show (I know, I know: "What a 'comparison'!")
Ntl, where else could one COUNT ON the...variety...of being able to read one month an interview with Ayn Rand, another month one with Jimmy Carter, then one with George Lincoln Rockwell, then with Henry Fonda, and then Malcolm X, then Ralph Nader, and Madalyn Murray O'Hair, and Alex Haley, and even Calvin Klein (fer Pete's sakes!), all...obviously at this point...with clearly NO 'partisan' orientation at subjects-interviewed.
Lines 'drawn-in-the-sand' SHOULD be made...to clarify distinctions, and, the reasons for them. B-U-T, such lines should not be made, nor used as, clarifications about "THEM=demons; US=Angels; you with 'them' or you with 'us'" (I grant, there IS a place for THAT, definitely; but, not in *my* present context-point) --- Lines drawn, for whatever 'purposes', should have the context of their purposes clarified; that is, IF the context is: "NO POINT IN DISCUSSING ANYTHING WITH 'X'"...it-should-be-spelled-out-by-the-line-drawer rather than snide side-commentings...or...arbitrary 'demands' about behaviour-changes, AND, the 'reasons/rationales' themselves also spelled-out.
Beyond that, such sand-drawn lines re one context do not imply a necessity of lines drawn in other contexts.
I am so tempted to ask "Why can't we all, just, 'get along'?", but [ducks] I think the better way to put this is: "Why do so many of our activist-'leaders' seem to need to find some rationale to officially exclude the Worth of disagreers on point 'X', 'Y', or 'Z'?
When 'lines-drawn-in-the-sand' have been shown to do with a bona-fidely clear (and, rationally-argued) point about the Morality of an agreement-disagreement about point 'A' or 'B', sure: Say "Get thee behind me Satan", or "Quoth the Raven: NEVERMORE", or "But, I don't think of you", all implying "I see no point in discussing anything with you from here on out".
However, until they've been shown, all this 'us-good; you-bad' by any 'sides' is nothing more than National Enquirer 'scandal/gossip' crap, making ant-hills into Himalayas.