We, They, You, He, - does not speak for me!

https://off-guardian.org/2020/06/03/a-conspiracy-theorist-confesses/#comment-185983

Well you shot at the wrong target there Carey, I said we EACH make of it what we will. Your response absolutely proves the point I made - which is a truism - BUT may invite or prompt curiosity as to WHY we make of it what we do - or WHAT FOR - ie what do we (believe we) get out of it.

Pronouns can be tricky, 'one' can seem removed - even if One in All is the nature of Existence. 'You' can seem to be TELLING another from some point of presumed authority. 'I' can seem self-obsessed and irrelevant. 'They' invites a 'we' by inference. We can share in a propensity or potential but can also - as you are rightly vigilant against - presume to speak for others.

'He and she' only apply to gender assigned nouns - without current gender deconstructions or inventions coming into play.

I recall when we first started using your argument in group communications it had power - because a generalising and co-opting delivery was being used as a masking in which to both hide agenda and hide from open communication.

I have no desire for either of those and so I am fully willing to engage with you on any point of any issue I raise.

Once a legitimate response to vague or wooly rationalisations seeking approval has been mapped into the mind of subconscious reactions, your kind of response becomes a de-facto spanner in the works to ANY use of the term 'we' regardless of context.

If you follow this, you get a sense of how communication between feeling and caring beings is filtered, distorted and blocked - to be subverted as an evil or operating as denial and undermining of the RIGHT to communicate or share.

WE EACH have our own patterns and predilections or pet identifications by which to participate in such an 'evil' - while maintaining the role or presentation of righteousness. Because you rightly feel 'wronged' by another's presumption to speak for you. But are you simply actively seeking to TAKE OFFENCE - so as to find a shadow against which to shine in opposition?

I write densely - but with a care to the nuances of meanings that could be misconstrued - such that everything is filtered in OUTPUT - not in receptivity.

In this I release inhibition against love by bringing a love of what I am speaking as I am speaking - and increase conscious inhibition of harm - even or especially when invited to irritation.

That many are self-isolating from love as 'threat of contagion' by lockstepping in denial of consciousness that unifies in collective harm, is part of my daily life - and I have to make of it what I will - or bring what I make of it to a Universal Will.

I have no interest in living your decisions or of influencing you in any way that is not your own will. In this I contrast with the agenda of a new world order, who seek to manipulate you by using your own mind against you - in exchange for a hit of righteousness and revenge.