![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I don't have quite the same presence on the interwebs that I once had; nevertheless I'm active on one or two pages - musician's geek pages talking about kit and stuff. Most of them are strictly apolitical and enforce that apolitical stance pretty rigorously; understandably given that most musos come from all spectra of political hue.
However there are some things which overlap unavoidably and the latest of there are:
Covid (responses, gigging, poverty, death, etc)
The present UK/EU situation regarding freedom of movement for musicians; or the new rules and the lack of ability of UK musicians to play in Europe without lots of red tape and prohibitive extra costs.
Anyway, the former problem tripped me up because there are some folk who on the boards who were, let's say, skeptical about the conventional responses to Covid, and to masks, and to the curtailment of their freedoms. It's not that unusual a position among musicians; Van Morrison and Eric Clapton spring to mind.
So... it ends up that on one of these pages I've been moderated by the chaps in charge (in the nicest possible way) because I sort of... went on a rant. It was a moderate and considered rant, but rant nevertheless.
But what I'd like to know - and maybe this is relevant to the process of healing the divides that exist between factions in certain polities - is how does one go about trying to combat both overt and covert politicisation by other folk, or even oneself? I mean I find it personally objectionable if someone states up is down as a serious position; to me that is deluded. (Satire is another matter; but the sort of satire available to geeky musicians may be an acquired taste.) How do you suggest to someone that they're wrong in a way that gets them to examine exactly what it is they think anew?
Obviously, I've failed again; but next time I want to fail better. Suggestions please. (Also I don't want to burn the house down, so to speak - going all Malcolm Tucker on eleven isn't really my modus operandi here.)
However there are some things which overlap unavoidably and the latest of there are:
Covid (responses, gigging, poverty, death, etc)
The present UK/EU situation regarding freedom of movement for musicians; or the new rules and the lack of ability of UK musicians to play in Europe without lots of red tape and prohibitive extra costs.
Anyway, the former problem tripped me up because there are some folk who on the boards who were, let's say, skeptical about the conventional responses to Covid, and to masks, and to the curtailment of their freedoms. It's not that unusual a position among musicians; Van Morrison and Eric Clapton spring to mind.
So... it ends up that on one of these pages I've been moderated by the chaps in charge (in the nicest possible way) because I sort of... went on a rant. It was a moderate and considered rant, but rant nevertheless.
But what I'd like to know - and maybe this is relevant to the process of healing the divides that exist between factions in certain polities - is how does one go about trying to combat both overt and covert politicisation by other folk, or even oneself? I mean I find it personally objectionable if someone states up is down as a serious position; to me that is deluded. (Satire is another matter; but the sort of satire available to geeky musicians may be an acquired taste.) How do you suggest to someone that they're wrong in a way that gets them to examine exactly what it is they think anew?
Obviously, I've failed again; but next time I want to fail better. Suggestions please. (Also I don't want to burn the house down, so to speak - going all Malcolm Tucker on eleven isn't really my modus operandi here.)
