Definitely not. Your previous comment (he still publishes vs participates in journalistic debates) makes a lot of sense. I'm saying that, personally, I haven't

Definitely not. Your previous comment (he still publishes vs participates in journalistic debates) makes a lot of sense. I'm saying that, personally, I haven't found a way to bring my values to these conversations in the public space that doesn't feel awkward, so I focus on sharing the talks/posts of those I agree with who do share that identity. Not to put words in your mouth, but perhaps you feel as I sometimes do that our right as people to participate in this public debate is being challenged or questioned on our identity alone. As much as I'd like to argue that isn't a basis for exclusion, there is something to consider in it. It's a hypothetical for me, a reality for others. That gives me pause. It doesn't mean the other person's interpretation is one I must or should adopt, but it seems unwise to form opinions that exclude their experience when talking about the rules that should govern society. The poster above pointed out that in Alan's case, those points of view weren't really even in the market without him and the British invasion. That's context I hadn't considered here. I was curious to see what the holes in my viewpoint were and that's certainly one.