Anyone is susceptible to creating straw men to argue …

Sometimes we engage something we are all too unfamiliar with as an adversary. Rather than take the time to learn, we skim authors who purportedly represesnt this other side. We draw some conclusions. We rally our base. We offer some lectures. We attach our famed reputation. We write a book. We base our criticisms on over simplifications and sweeping generalizations to the degree even those whom we write about would agree with such extremes (spoke with one who was criticized). We then must ask what is the point of the lecture and the book. Surely there is something to learn? Would dialogue be better than diatribe? Would conversation leading to understanding be better than criticism creating adversaries of what should be allies? Is this a form of condescending in order to alienate and control? Seen these things before. I hope the outcome is much different.