Day 284 Yangs Freedom Dividend - Responding to Critics

I think what us UBI and the new term coined by Andrew Yang as the Freedom Dividend supporters should be doing to counter the critics of implementing such a policy and/or the passivists regarding Yangs proposal in particular out of a sort of deep apathy for what Yangs proposal s upposedly represents at large in terms of the progressive social economic landscape, should be to delve deeper into the research and information regarding past experiments, expound upon ideological and theoritical bases for implementation from a macroeconomic point of view, and delve into the basis and or though processes and\or hidden agendas or motivations behind those that are critics to see if theyre points of view actually have any merit or not in actuality. This will strengthen our abilities to promote and support such a cause and better able to disseminate valid information regarding the questions that arise from skeptics as well those piqued from the curiousity of those that are inclined to think in ways that are to be considered socially conscientious. It is important to approach such critics with neutrality and an impartiality towards their opinion. Instead of taking their stance in consideration from an emotional perspective, instead be impartial and use their words and thoughts as catalysts to investigate their words or assertions practically to better understand where they are coming from, using that as a catalyst to either verify or invalidate their views from a practical standpoint as well as utilizing enlightened theoritics based on practical working knowledge of life to challenge and test the underlying theoritics of their arguments.

When you take their stance personally or villify their point of view by virtue of feeling disempowered as a result of their point of view and assume you now must 'argue with them' or 'deal with them' in an emotional way then you give power to their point of view without practically disseminating the proper response to their words and assertions. Taking this approach usually stems from a fear that the allowance of that person to disseminate their views openly in contradictions to what one is striving to accomplish as if their point of view acts like an infectious cyst if and when one sees the falsity of their arguments. And in many ways their point of view is , but to let that waiver your stength in disseminating the correct information that is in the interest of what is best for all would be to let that view take power over you.