I'm having a hard time understanding your point of view; loathsome indicates a fairly high degree of resentment or disgust at the topics of discussion, but from my perspective the speaker makes a well grounded and insightful critique of the consensus on how 'indigenous reciprocity' is conceptualised and approached by the 'psychedelic community'. He emphatically states that he is speaking subjectively and explicitly recognises his fallibility and incomplete perspective on these matters, the argument is presented in a way that implies invitation to dialogue, he is not speaking from a self appointed authority. Not to mention the fact that the presentation contains reflections from a respected indigenous community community leader who echoes the sentiments expressed. Perhaps it touched a nerve? I feel like, despite your claims of 'hope' for the utility of the information, that you were triggered by the conversation from the outset, so maybe you should ask yourself why you responded so strongly in the negative to a well reasoned argument?
wow this one VERY VERY NEEDED and so much to think about going forward with words !!!! THANK YOU for being so brave
Damn that was… about as loathsome as I was hoping it to be useful..,
I'm having a hard time understanding your point of view; loathsome indicates a fairly high degree of resentment or disgust at the topics of discussion, but from my perspective the speaker makes a well grounded and insightful critique of the consensus on how 'indigenous reciprocity' is conceptualised and approached by the 'psychedelic community'. He emphatically states that he is speaking subjectively and explicitly recognises his fallibility and incomplete perspective on these matters, the argument is presented in a way that implies invitation to dialogue, he is not speaking from a self appointed authority. Not to mention the fact that the presentation contains reflections from a respected indigenous community community leader who echoes the sentiments expressed. Perhaps it touched a nerve? I feel like, despite your claims of 'hope' for the utility of the information, that you were triggered by the conversation from the outset, so maybe you should ask yourself why you responded so strongly in the negative to a well reasoned argument?