In my opinion the greatest thing about the US is the freedoms we have, especially freedom of speech. I know it potentially comes with consequences. We are quickly going from strong willed to weak minded. Stand up… Fight back
You have a lot of great topics in your preamble. I would also recommend that you do a follow up on some of your more popular articles a week or two later there’s always a few questions that might be able to be answered in a follow up :-) thanks for the great work.
I think it’s time to stop pussyfooting around it… we are *currently* living under a fascist regime. They’re coming for immigrants now but it is a short jump, hop, skip away before they start jailing born US citizens for their dissent.
For the love of democracy he needs to be removed from office….
The Rubio quote angered me too. It made me think about potential conversations I could have with people who are only tepidly in support of Trump, and it would go a little something like this:
"Have you noticed how often these politicians call their critics 'lunatics' or 'deranged' instead of addressing their actual points? What seems more plausible - that half of America is mentally ill, or that labeling opposition as 'lunatics' is just a convenient way to avoid engaging with criticism?"
"Why trust leaders who dismiss any perspective different from theirs? Aren't they modeling exactly what they accuse the 'elites' of doing?"
"If someone needs you to believe everyone else is mentally unstable, what does that tell you about their confidence in their own arguments?"
"Do you think a leader who can't handle criticism or different viewpoints is actually equipped to solve complex problems?"
I know many people are too far gone to persuade, but I know many people personally who are generally intelligent, thoughtful people who have fallen into a trap of political extremism. I’m hopeful that with today’s headlines and some careful nudging that they can wake up a little bit.
Timothy -- I certainly hope you are right. Communicating with MAGA folks requires such nuance. When we become 'militant' in our speech...they only dig in further. I watched the latest episode of Bill Maher last night. Gavin Newsom was his one-on-one guest. Newsom came across quite amicably, and spoke of this very subject (communicating without deprecating). I think he can be a strong voice for Democrats' future--however, I think it would be a tough road for him to appeal to the greater masses in a national election. Unfortunately, he carries the moniker of, not just 'liberal', but "California Liberal." We'll see what 2028 holds.
I also thought Rubio had a soul. If he did, it's long gone. He went from: "He is a con artist. He runs on this idea he is fighting for the little guy, but he has spent his entire career sticking it to the little guy — his entire career."...and "He's going to Americans that are struggling, that are hurting, and he's implying, 'I'm fighting for you because I'm a tough guy,'" Rubio said. "A tough guy? This guy inherited $200 million. He's never faced any struggle."...to walking in lockstep with Trump and standing behind his asinine (at best) policies is an utter disgrace because he once did seem like someone who had a moral code to uphold.
I wonder what will be left to celebrate next year when we mark the 250th anniversary of the founding of our democracy. Look at the UK compared to us now. They have the freedoms we fought for while we deal with a man who thinks he’s a king.
I think about this a lot, too. I was in 1st grade when we celebrated our 200th anniversary and I remember how proud I was to live in this country, and it stirred a lifelong feeling of patriotism in me.
I was also in first grade in 1976, and it stirred the same feelings in me. For my first grade class photo, we all wore colonial costumes in celebration of the bicentennial. I wonder if we'll even have anything left to celebrate next year. 😢
Jennifer, I have struggled as well the last few years. I live in Oklahoma, and it seems like I always see the American flag with a Trump flag flying with it. Last year I decided I’m taking that flag back. This is my country as well, and I love it. I want to fight and protect it so my grandchildren have a wonderful life here just like I have. I have 3 biracial granddaughters that I’m specifically fighting for. They have less rights than me or my 3 daughters had. So I get where you are coming from, but remember those of us fighting for our constitution and all of our rights, are the true patriots. Not those blindly following the CURRENT president. 🩵 by the way, I dresses up in Colonial costumes as well when celebrating the 1976 bicentennial celebration.
I find what ICE is doing to be terrifying. I have a friend whose family has been deeply affected by this and my heart is breaking for them. As a parent of 2 children about to go college, I fear for their future and opportunities.
I'm struck by how many vocal young MAGA supporters who constantly champion "freedom of speech at all costs" have been conspicuously silent about these crackdowns on campus speech. These are the same folks who will rant for hours about censorship on social media or in classrooms, yet when students are literally being detained by masked officers and deported for expressing anti-Israel views, suddenly they're nowhere to be found.
What's even more bizarre is how many of these "free speech warriors" simultaneously express strongly anti-Israel sentiments themselves, sometimes veering into obviously antisemitic territory. They'll spin elaborate conspiracy theories about Israel controlling everything from foreign policy to vaccine approvals (seriously, I've seen claims that RFK Jr. is only promoting measles vaccines because of Israeli blackmail against him), yet they won't say a word when their own political leaders are actively punishing speech critical of Israel. The cognitive dissonance is astounding.
I'm curious if other readers here have noticed this phenomenon? I'll admit I don't have the emotional bandwidth to follow many of these MAGA influencer accounts consistently, but the silence from the "free speech at any cost" crowd seems deafening when it comes to these university crackdowns. It feels like such an obvious hole in their ideology - claiming to be absolutists about protecting speech while looking the other way when speech they agree with is being actively suppressed through government force. Maybe this is an effective avenue to question the consistency of their support? The next time one of these influencers rants about free speech being under attack, perhaps we should ask why they're not speaking out against masked federal agents nabbing students off campus sidewalks.
Which also has me thinking: Wouldn’t it be nice if we had a place where rational, anti-MAGA people could organize their voices to descend on these powerful MAGA influencers and steer the conversation toward the cracks in their support for their chosen politicians? I’m working on it. Shoot me a message if you’re interested in learning more. 🤓
I live in Deer Park, TX and my state rep (Briscoe Cain) has been labeled the most conservative politician in Texas. What you’re missing is that some of these people (including Briscoe) are Christian nationalists. That’s the piece that you’re missing. So while they want free speech when it comes to their radical views of Christianity, they could care less about foreigners being arrested who don’t hold the same Christian beliefs as them.
If you understand Christian nationalism, then you’ll understand Trump who’s surrounded himself for his second term by those people. It’s not the same as being a republican as you imagine it but the groups do overlap to an extent.
Except what’s also happening is that funding is being pulled from schools. They are cheering the demise of those “elite, woke liberal schools”. They are too stupid to understand that the funding being pulled was used to find a cure for cancer, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, diabetes and so many more things that help, or may help ALL people. There were clinical trials that people were depending on to potentially save their lives, that were canceled in the middle of the trial. This isn’t supposed to be about stroking some tantrum prone man’s ego, it’s about helping society help our most vulnerable people. They should all be ashamed.
Ashley, yes I do think you're correct about why many of those who claim to be free speech absolutists are contradicting their principles when it comes to foreign students. I wasn't thinking of Christian nationalists because I don't follow any of them on social media, for two reasons: I feel like I already understand how simplistic their worldview is (no need to educate myself further) and the emotional toll it would take to subject myself to it. No thanks! But you make a great point that that's a big part of how in general people can hold these contradictory principles.
More who I was thinking of are these "I used to be a liberal before I woke up to MAGA/MAHA, but I'm not really left or right I'm just a free thinker" influencers that are doing all kinds of gymnastics right now to pick the parts to be angry about, imagining conspiracies, and then ignore when their chosen guy does the same thing right out in the open.
Although Melissa (commenting in another reply) just mentioned Candace Owens, and she's right: I am aware of Candace existing but haven't had the nerve to seek out how she's handling this. I am aware of how much weight her opinion carries in right wing punditry and maybe it's about time I suck it up and watch a few videos if I want to understand how the other side is rationalizing these contradictions.
Thanks, Patti! If that's accurate, it would help explain why I have been avoiding her. And then I'll look forward to hating every minute of what she has to say about how the government should work.
🤢🤮🤮🤮 (I don't use that emoji lightly! And of course this is not a reaction to Christianity, it's a reaction to anyone that thinks any religion, or denial of religion, has an official place in my government.)
I’ve not heard of that book. I may order it! Sounds exactly what’s happening in my community. We made international news recently because of a Christian nationalist pastor in my town, and I have quite a few neighbors on my street who go to that church. It’s shocked me and the community on how this pastor speaks.
You would probably appreciate Candace Owens thoughts on these crackdowns and arrests. As an unapologetic conservative, she definitely questions the legality of the administration squashing these students' rights to free speech and non-violent protests. She is not at all silent on the issue. She is very critical of those punishing anyone who speaks negatively of Israel.
Thank you so much for reminding me of Candace. I think she's the missing piece of the puzzle for what I'm talking about. I don't follow her on social media, but these influencers that have videos that I do see reference her all of the time in their posts, and their commenters mention her all the time. I am aware of her, but my impression is still tainted from some very negative reactions I had to her content when she was a new name. But now that she's ascended to be respected by so much of the right wing talk shows, it's probably about time I educate myself on how she and her followers see the world. Thank you for the homework.
I'm curious, do you see her opinions making any difference in the way Trump governs? Do her followers seem to be making any demands for Trump to reverse these policies?
Not to bury my own question, but OMG. I just checked out Candace's YouTube channel. Her guest just a few days ago was Ian Carroll, one of the people I was thinking mostly about when I was talking about influencers who can't seem to find themselves able to criticize Trump, despite Trump contradicting Trump's own principles on the issues that Ian cares about the most.
I wanted to know if she asks Ian about the arrests, so I went to the transcript and searched the word "arrest" -- BINGO, at 26 minutes, coming right out of commercial break, she flat out says: "Do you think that there will be a moment where we are seeing Americans arrested? Because I'm so shocked by the fact that they're arresting students that have green cards, and getting them out of, kicking them out of the country, and I'm just going, "was I alive for BLM when the Trump administration in 2016 took the approach that this was really wrong and radical and leftist when people were demanding speech laws and hate speech laws for BLM, and we were talking about how wrong that was, and now they've completely done a 180 – this administration in a 180 – and they're like "but okay but for the special category of Israel, we can... all of this is actually fine, like, woke is fine when it comes to Israel."
And then Ian, who I am guessing is still uncomfortable calling the president out completely, agrees with her but tries to derail Candace's point with other ideas, and Candace just keeps coming back: this is a contradiction of principle, they're hypocrites.
I have to admit, I was wrong about Candace when I thought there wouldn't be anything here to benefit from. Obviously, I cannot say that this 10 minutes was emblematic of everything she says, but I do at least have a respect for anyone who is willing to fight for consistency in political philosophy. I'll have to come back and check out her stuff when other news items require an alternative viewpoint for context.
I think you might want to do a bit more research on Candace. In my opinion, the only reason why she could possibly not be in lockstep with Trump on everything except for his snatching of students who protested against Israel, is because she is well known for embracing antisemitic rhetoric, among her other reprehensible views, like telling Kamala Harris after the election that she could go back to being Indian.
She's also claimed that she has proof that Kamala Harris lied about her ancestry (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/harris-grandparents-candace-owens/) and recently did a deep dive into "proving" that Emmanuel Macron's wife, Brigitte, is a trans woman. She's very good at sounding very confident when she's just weaving a creative story.
That being said, given her audience and reach, what she is saying shouldn't be completely ignored either. Just like I think Ben Shapiro is too often overly-reductive, and he loves nothing more than to punch down a lefty straw man (that he constructed), but he was one of the first on the right to call out Trump's nonsense tariff math and I can applaud him for that small fact.
Thank you both for this information. Just like how Trump's obsession with Obama's birth certificate had nothing to do with the supposed underlying question of eligibility, and had everything to do with using our country's tortured relationship with race to score political points with easily manipulated people, it appears Owens is just as guilty as anyone who's succeeded in the right wing media landscape when it comes to prioritizing ratings above all else, even if it means misleading her followers with lies about something that shouldn't even matter to a voter. Like, really, you're going to claim that you know what the people really care about, so you do a completely false "deep dive" on whether Harris's biological grandma died before she was born? Not only completely false, but like, why should anyone even care? Such a grifter move.
It's such a low bar that it's painful to say it, but yes, like Emily was saying, there can still be some value in seeing some critical thinking going on, even if the motivation of that thinking is coming from the worst of places (antisemitism). And when I say "value" I mean that perhaps it could be used against them for the intention of fighting autocracy. I wish I could just ignore her, but that's kinda how we got here in this situation.
It's got me thinking that in the absence of a better alternative, how can we highlight moments like this for a wider audience? Like, I don't actually want to give Owens any more followers if she's using her platform to stoke hate and division, but perhaps the clip I saw can be extracted to remove the irrelevant stuff and put it back out there with this headline: "Candace Owens and Ian Carroll agree: 'Trump says 'Woke is fine when it comes to Israel.''" That's where my head is at: how do we use this garbage of a situation to work in the interest of democracy?
Hey Emily! I know we've had this back and forth before, but rather than posting quotes from other sources I'm wondering if you've actually listened to her? She explains her stance on Israel quite clearly - she's not antisemitic, she just doesn't blindly give a country a blanket pass on events/people that deserve to be questioned (none of us should!). As Sharon would say: 2 things can be true at the same time. 1) We can never let the annihilation of a people group happen again; and 2) Israeli leaders (like all humans) can sometimes do bad things, and we should be allowed to question.
They never wanted free speech, but instead wanted to say what they’d like with no repercussions. I’ve also found as things are said at the top everyday people think it’s ok to say too. For instance any pride post on FB always has a ton of comments on how that sponsor lost their business. I think before this election most kept some of those thoughts to themselves.
This is in reaction to the survey, right? I agree: if it’s being offered in addition to everything, great! But hopefully it doesn’t distract from the in depth reporting we are here for. It’s easy to get headlines elsewhere. No need to sacrifice anything for that feature. But I love that they’re asking how to improve an already extremely valuable resource!
Exactly my feeling! There are a TON of newsletters that summarize the daily news (happy to recommend them to anyone who is looking for one!) but this is the only/best resource for getting into the nitty gritty of important issues, as well as tying them into the broader context. It's so valuable as it is, and while I'll always take more Sharon content, I would be really disappointed if this shifted formats to a round up of news of the day.
I also wonder about this. I think we know the answer - whatever he decides it is in the moment, followed by whatever consequences his followers are willing to carry out in his name.
Not long ago the protests that decimated the community of Portland, OR were 'decided in the moment' to be 'mostly peaceful' and were fully supported by those followers willing to carry it out. Somehow, the Dems decided this was NOT an illegal protest??? Not really fair to let those violent, destructive protests get off the hook, but now we're all really mad at Trump and supporters? I actually don't agree with the random arrests of many of these students, and I appreciate that the Supreme Court has stepped in declaring that they need to have the opportunity to defend themselves before they get deported. But the hypocrisy of the very violent and destructive protests over the past few years, being portrayed as legal and peaceful makes me sick to my stomach.
If the argument is "whatever he decides it is in the moment, followed by whatever consequences his followers are willing to carry out in his name"...then my point is that this goes for both sides of the aisle. I just don't know if people asked themselves these definition questions when businesses were being destroyed.
I don’t recall any violent protesters getting off the hook (I in fact remember the opposite and a lot of people were arrested for destruction of property, etc.?) but I do recall Trump pardoning some 1,000+ “tourists” for storming the capitol.
"Between May 25 and Oct. 7, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Oregon filed federal charges against 97 people connected to the Portland unrest. Since then 58 of those cases have either been dismissed outright or are on track for dismissal through a deferred resolution agreement. Thirty-two cases are still pending, with many likely to also end in dismissal according to sources. Seven people have entered guilty pleas."
But, what I think is more to the point - I believe what we're seeing is: if the cause/reason/motivation of the riot/protest lines up with the useful narrative of a particular party...suddenly that riot/protest is excused and justified. I hold the leaders of that party responsible for supporting/encouraging violence and destruction, or more often than not - being silent about what's happening.
Also I don’t understand the point of your quote.. cases being dropped, plea deals, etc. is all at the discretion of the DA and if cases were dismissed it was likely because they did not have sufficient evidence to prove their case.
That’s not some sort of “gotcha” that’s just how our criminal justice system is supposed to work. Were some of those people guilty? Maybe. Who knows.
In a democracy a protest I don’t think needs to be “justified”
You seem to be conflating crime that happens during a protest with the protest itself. Of course looting, etc. is not “protest.” That is crime.
Some people may excuse crime so long as they’re on the side of the matter they agree with but that is also wrong. And again, a separate issue from protests.
A riot and a protest are entirely different things, but you're presenting them as one in the same. Yes, a protest can evolve into a riot, which we have seen happen several times. I don't recall any riots being portrayed as peaceful? But maybe I missed that particular bit of reporting.
I hear the frustration you’re expressing, especially around what feels like inconsistency in how different protests have been described or treated. I agree with you on one important point: protests that cause harm to people or destruction to communities should be taken seriously, no matter who is involved or what their politics are. That kind of harm can't be hand-waved away, and we do ourselves a disservice when we fail to reckon honestly with it.
I think my concern—and what I was trying to get at in my original comment—is the growing pattern of selectively applying terms like “illegal” or “patriotic” depending on whether someone agrees with the cause or not. You're absolutely right that this temptation exists on all sides. But it becomes especially dangerous when leaders with significant power, especially the head of the Executive Branch of government, use vague or shifting definitions to justify the suppression of dissent.
Your point about giving students the chance to defend themselves before facing consequences is a powerful one, and I really appreciate that you're holding space for both concern and nuance. My hope is that we can continue to expect accountability from everyone, without slipping into false equivalency or allowing real harm to go unexamined.
Thanks again for engaging. These aren’t easy conversations, but they matter.
Violence and destruction is illegal. My point is that the protest isn’t illegal. The behavior of some during the protest is wrong. I just get worried when I hear “illegal protest” because, as Americans, we DO have the right to protest and express our support or displeasure of our government and its actions. I felt that way about the BLM protests, the Occupy Wall Street protests, and even Jan 6 protest. I also think it’s important to separate those who are simply protesting from those who are destroying property or assaulting others (or to your point, blocking streets or access for others).
"But the hypocrisy of the very violent and destructive protests over the past few years, being portrayed as legal and peaceful makes me sick to my stomach."
Can you help me understand what you're seeing as hypocrisy? Are you saying that Democratic leaders in charge at that time should have cracked down harder on those protests, because the government should be justified in cracking down hard on protesters? I'm not quite following how the one connects to the other.
I believe the leaders of our country should always crack down on protests that turn violent, assault others, destroy property - no matter the reason for the protest/riot. The government should never crack down on peaceful, legal protests.
The hypocrisy, IMO, comes when riots like what happened in Portland, OR are excused or justified because of 'why' they're causing destruction. Many news outlets tried to convince the public that they were 'mostly peaceful', nothing to see here folks...and this narrative was supported by many Democrat leaders at the time. And I've spoken to business owners in Portland...they shared that it was definitely not peaceful at all.
For the record, I do agree with you about the Portland protests. The overall destruction of the 2020 protests was often overstated (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests#Perception_of_pervasiveness_of_violence), but I don't think that reality is helped by people then overcorrecting and trying to deny that violence and destruction was happening at all.
I'm still not sure that I see how it connects to this specific issue, but I appreciate you clarifying a bit more of your thoughts.
I believe that any protest that attempts to restrict the rights of others (blocking certain students from being able to get to class?) or that leads to assaulting others or destruction of property (ie Portland, Oregon a few years ago; Jan 6; Kenosha, WI; California University 5 days ago; vandalism of Tesla's...). A legal protest should not endanger others or destroy property. Many in America have forgotten this or are deliberately ignoring it.
I agree with you, no one should be prevented from entering a building, no one should be assaulted, and no destruction of property should occur. All of those things are done by a subset of individuals at the protest. That doesn't mean the organizers have sanctioned that behavior. The right to protest is a long-held belief in this country and to have that infringed on by the federal government seems to be the antithesis of what we stand for as a country.
I'm curious if you have that viewpoint of Jan6? All the destruction and assaults were done by a subset of individuals at the protest? That the organizers of the Jan6 peaceful protest (including a guest speaker: Trump) did not sanction the behavior of those individuals?
I can't speak for Gail, but when I think about January 6th I am specifically thinking about those who broke into the Capital building, who wielded weapons against police officers, who left trash and filth inside the building, who entered lawmakers' offices, and who attempted to breach the chamber. Oh, and the ones who planted bombs and caches of weapons around the area. I'm not thinking about the much larger group who gathered for the rally outside or those who stayed away from the melee at the building. While I am deeply uncomfortable with the juxtaposition of bringing a prefabricated gallows to the Capital *alongside* the active calls to hang Vice President Pence, I don't think that by itself the act of making a prop for a protest is inherently violent (I obviously can't speak to the intent of the makers).
President Trump's role is of course muddied by the fact that he was still the President and pointedly refused to diffuse the situation until much later, despite the protestations of those around him, and the fact that the protesters were only there because he refused to concede the election and insisted that VP Pence had the power to 'stop the steal.' He's not responsible for their actions but he is responsible for stoking those lies and then not standing up when it was clear the situation was going south.
Ultimately, everyone is responsible for their own actions. Leaders bear a greater responsibility to set the tone, but they cannot be fully responsible for what people do with that message.
Emily summed up my feelings nicely. Anyone who forced their way in, damaged the building, threatened the safety of others, attacked Capitol police, OR those who encouraged and cheered that behavior on, are part of the subset of people who are responsible. If storming the capitol was the goal then the organizers should be included in that group.
Trump’s involvement is more complex. He was the President and he encouraged them to march down there after getting them all worked up using lies about the election. While he didn’t personally storm the building he sanctioned the actions and then pardoned people who did wrong.
This administration’s anti-DEI/anti-immigration stance is a blatant display of bigotry, xenophobia, and hatred, and has no place in our society. We are being moved backward at warp speed.
In addition to everything else wrong with this administration, they are setting a terrible precedent for contracts and grants from the federal government. What university, or business would want to sign any deal that lasts longer than the end of the current president's term? If every president can unilaterally cancel any or every ongoing project or funding that was done under the preceding president, it's too big a financial risk to take.
This is excellent, but once again I find myself so angry. Trump voters never cared about democracy, free speech, or public safety... they instead have installed a cruel, antidemocratic regime that is completely destroying US civil society.
I'm so scared for everyone in ICE detention and everyone threatened by this evil administration. Rumeysa Ozturk is still being denied her asthma medications while she is detained in Louisiana, and Mahmoud Khalil's wife is due to have their baby any day. My heart breaks for what America has become.
I would love to understand why ICE agents who are pulling people from the streets are permitted to be plain clothed and wearing masks?? I’m sorry, but this screams human trafficking to me and I have always told my kids that they should scream and fight against anyone who would try to abduct them … and that is what this certainly looks like.
Seeing Better Help as a sponsor is so disappointing. They are so predatory, taking advantage of therapists and clients. I hope you'll look for better sponsors.
As it's been mentioned, Better Help had and probably still has some major issues with client confidentiality and data not being stored safely. Also, the pay for therapists is abysmal, which is a problem in a lot of spaces. As in every industry, there are good, ethical therapists and there are some that are not--there's a lack of oversight and accountability for that through Better Help, especially around continuity of care. They are a tech company, not a mental health company, which is clear from their services. While I'm sure some have been helped by a BH therapist, I believe they do more harm than good in the world of mental health. Just my two cents. And I'm just disappointed to see that Sharon would enter a sponsorship with them after so much talk about not having sponsors, this one is just so disappointing.
Can you say more on this? My therapist husband’s take on Better Help is that, though the care may be slightly less professional, it’s at least very accessible - for both the therapist and client. He knows many people who have used it on both sides and hasn’t seen any predation.
There was at least one therapist on YouTube who did an excellent breakdown of why their model is predatory (specifically for the therapists, there's a lot of weird employment and labor stuff), how they're not careful with patient data, and why the model itself is not always ideal for a healthy therapeutic relationship, etc. Better Help then sued her and she had to pull the video down. She did do a follow-up here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pArM2GyHX4g
That original video was from 2022; the Reddit thread is from last year. Overall the impression is that the critiques have been out there for a long time but Better Help is working to keep them suppressed.
I have a friend who used BetterHelp whose "therapist" gave genuinely harmful advice and he had to stop seeing her when she had a serious psychiatric break. It totally put him off therapy altogether and I think did a lot more harm than good.
I too had a horrible experience with a therapist on BetterHelp. It was 2021 and I offhandedly mentioned my daughter doing online school, which was her preference at the time even though in person school had resumed. Therapist went off for several minutes about how much of a horrible idea that was, how she really needed to be in school, that there must be something wrong with her if she wanted to do it online, etc etc. Totally derailed the conversation we were having about my parenting struggles, plus she gave me a whole new issue to worry about; thinking I was a bad mom for letting my kid do online school during a pandemic! She was always late too. Worst therapy experience of my life.
In my opinion the greatest thing about the US is the freedoms we have, especially freedom of speech. I know it potentially comes with consequences. We are quickly going from strong willed to weak minded. Stand up… Fight back
Those of us that can stand up and fight back must do so for those that cannot. It is a moral obligation!
You have a lot of great topics in your preamble. I would also recommend that you do a follow up on some of your more popular articles a week or two later there’s always a few questions that might be able to be answered in a follow up :-) thanks for the great work.
I think it’s time to stop pussyfooting around it… we are *currently* living under a fascist regime. They’re coming for immigrants now but it is a short jump, hop, skip away before they start jailing born US citizens for their dissent.
For the love of democracy he needs to be removed from office….
THIS 💯
“Every time I find one of these lunatics, I take away their visas,” Rubio has boasted.
The pleasure they take in these actions is all I need to see to know their motivations. Power and control and ego. Completely unprincipled.
The Rubio quote angered me too. It made me think about potential conversations I could have with people who are only tepidly in support of Trump, and it would go a little something like this:
"Have you noticed how often these politicians call their critics 'lunatics' or 'deranged' instead of addressing their actual points? What seems more plausible - that half of America is mentally ill, or that labeling opposition as 'lunatics' is just a convenient way to avoid engaging with criticism?"
"Why trust leaders who dismiss any perspective different from theirs? Aren't they modeling exactly what they accuse the 'elites' of doing?"
"If someone needs you to believe everyone else is mentally unstable, what does that tell you about their confidence in their own arguments?"
"Do you think a leader who can't handle criticism or different viewpoints is actually equipped to solve complex problems?"
I know many people are too far gone to persuade, but I know many people personally who are generally intelligent, thoughtful people who have fallen into a trap of political extremism. I’m hopeful that with today’s headlines and some careful nudging that they can wake up a little bit.
Timothy -- I certainly hope you are right. Communicating with MAGA folks requires such nuance. When we become 'militant' in our speech...they only dig in further. I watched the latest episode of Bill Maher last night. Gavin Newsom was his one-on-one guest. Newsom came across quite amicably, and spoke of this very subject (communicating without deprecating). I think he can be a strong voice for Democrats' future--however, I think it would be a tough road for him to appeal to the greater masses in a national election. Unfortunately, he carries the moniker of, not just 'liberal', but "California Liberal." We'll see what 2028 holds.
These are great thought provoking questions!
I used to think Rubio was one of the good ones. Now he makes me sick. Everything Trump touches dies.
I also thought Rubio had a soul. If he did, it's long gone. He went from: "He is a con artist. He runs on this idea he is fighting for the little guy, but he has spent his entire career sticking it to the little guy — his entire career."...and "He's going to Americans that are struggling, that are hurting, and he's implying, 'I'm fighting for you because I'm a tough guy,'" Rubio said. "A tough guy? This guy inherited $200 million. He's never faced any struggle."...to walking in lockstep with Trump and standing behind his asinine (at best) policies is an utter disgrace because he once did seem like someone who had a moral code to uphold.
I wonder what will be left to celebrate next year when we mark the 250th anniversary of the founding of our democracy. Look at the UK compared to us now. They have the freedoms we fought for while we deal with a man who thinks he’s a king.
I think about this a lot, too. I was in 1st grade when we celebrated our 200th anniversary and I remember how proud I was to live in this country, and it stirred a lifelong feeling of patriotism in me.
I was also in first grade in 1976, and it stirred the same feelings in me. For my first grade class photo, we all wore colonial costumes in celebration of the bicentennial. I wonder if we'll even have anything left to celebrate next year. 😢
Yes, we wore the colonial dresses, too. I really am struggling with my patriotism right now and it's a really weird feeling. 😕
Jennifer, I have struggled as well the last few years. I live in Oklahoma, and it seems like I always see the American flag with a Trump flag flying with it. Last year I decided I’m taking that flag back. This is my country as well, and I love it. I want to fight and protect it so my grandchildren have a wonderful life here just like I have. I have 3 biracial granddaughters that I’m specifically fighting for. They have less rights than me or my 3 daughters had. So I get where you are coming from, but remember those of us fighting for our constitution and all of our rights, are the true patriots. Not those blindly following the CURRENT president. 🩵 by the way, I dresses up in Colonial costumes as well when celebrating the 1976 bicentennial celebration.
Our amazing country is still young and the arc of justice and maturity so very long…
Democracy is truly a process
I find what ICE is doing to be terrifying. I have a friend whose family has been deeply affected by this and my heart is breaking for them. As a parent of 2 children about to go college, I fear for their future and opportunities.
I'm struck by how many vocal young MAGA supporters who constantly champion "freedom of speech at all costs" have been conspicuously silent about these crackdowns on campus speech. These are the same folks who will rant for hours about censorship on social media or in classrooms, yet when students are literally being detained by masked officers and deported for expressing anti-Israel views, suddenly they're nowhere to be found.
What's even more bizarre is how many of these "free speech warriors" simultaneously express strongly anti-Israel sentiments themselves, sometimes veering into obviously antisemitic territory. They'll spin elaborate conspiracy theories about Israel controlling everything from foreign policy to vaccine approvals (seriously, I've seen claims that RFK Jr. is only promoting measles vaccines because of Israeli blackmail against him), yet they won't say a word when their own political leaders are actively punishing speech critical of Israel. The cognitive dissonance is astounding.
I'm curious if other readers here have noticed this phenomenon? I'll admit I don't have the emotional bandwidth to follow many of these MAGA influencer accounts consistently, but the silence from the "free speech at any cost" crowd seems deafening when it comes to these university crackdowns. It feels like such an obvious hole in their ideology - claiming to be absolutists about protecting speech while looking the other way when speech they agree with is being actively suppressed through government force. Maybe this is an effective avenue to question the consistency of their support? The next time one of these influencers rants about free speech being under attack, perhaps we should ask why they're not speaking out against masked federal agents nabbing students off campus sidewalks.
Which also has me thinking: Wouldn’t it be nice if we had a place where rational, anti-MAGA people could organize their voices to descend on these powerful MAGA influencers and steer the conversation toward the cracks in their support for their chosen politicians? I’m working on it. Shoot me a message if you’re interested in learning more. 🤓
I live in Deer Park, TX and my state rep (Briscoe Cain) has been labeled the most conservative politician in Texas. What you’re missing is that some of these people (including Briscoe) are Christian nationalists. That’s the piece that you’re missing. So while they want free speech when it comes to their radical views of Christianity, they could care less about foreigners being arrested who don’t hold the same Christian beliefs as them.
If you understand Christian nationalism, then you’ll understand Trump who’s surrounded himself for his second term by those people. It’s not the same as being a republican as you imagine it but the groups do overlap to an extent.
Except what’s also happening is that funding is being pulled from schools. They are cheering the demise of those “elite, woke liberal schools”. They are too stupid to understand that the funding being pulled was used to find a cure for cancer, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, diabetes and so many more things that help, or may help ALL people. There were clinical trials that people were depending on to potentially save their lives, that were canceled in the middle of the trial. This isn’t supposed to be about stroking some tantrum prone man’s ego, it’s about helping society help our most vulnerable people. They should all be ashamed.
Ashley, yes I do think you're correct about why many of those who claim to be free speech absolutists are contradicting their principles when it comes to foreign students. I wasn't thinking of Christian nationalists because I don't follow any of them on social media, for two reasons: I feel like I already understand how simplistic their worldview is (no need to educate myself further) and the emotional toll it would take to subject myself to it. No thanks! But you make a great point that that's a big part of how in general people can hold these contradictory principles.
More who I was thinking of are these "I used to be a liberal before I woke up to MAGA/MAHA, but I'm not really left or right I'm just a free thinker" influencers that are doing all kinds of gymnastics right now to pick the parts to be angry about, imagining conspiracies, and then ignore when their chosen guy does the same thing right out in the open.
Although Melissa (commenting in another reply) just mentioned Candace Owens, and she's right: I am aware of Candace existing but haven't had the nerve to seek out how she's handling this. I am aware of how much weight her opinion carries in right wing punditry and maybe it's about time I suck it up and watch a few videos if I want to understand how the other side is rationalizing these contradictions.
Candace Owens is a Christian Nationalist, Timothy.
Thanks, Patti! If that's accurate, it would help explain why I have been avoiding her. And then I'll look forward to hating every minute of what she has to say about how the government should work.
https://x.com/RealCandaceO/status/1780001138785288304
🤢🤮🤮🤮 (I don't use that emoji lightly! And of course this is not a reaction to Christianity, it's a reaction to anyone that thinks any religion, or denial of religion, has an official place in my government.)
Have you read Disarming Leviathan?
I’ve not heard of that book. I may order it! Sounds exactly what’s happening in my community. We made international news recently because of a Christian nationalist pastor in my town, and I have quite a few neighbors on my street who go to that church. It’s shocked me and the community on how this pastor speaks.
I’d be curious to hear your thoughts if you read it.
Exactly, Ashley!!
You would probably appreciate Candace Owens thoughts on these crackdowns and arrests. As an unapologetic conservative, she definitely questions the legality of the administration squashing these students' rights to free speech and non-violent protests. She is not at all silent on the issue. She is very critical of those punishing anyone who speaks negatively of Israel.
Thank you so much for reminding me of Candace. I think she's the missing piece of the puzzle for what I'm talking about. I don't follow her on social media, but these influencers that have videos that I do see reference her all of the time in their posts, and their commenters mention her all the time. I am aware of her, but my impression is still tainted from some very negative reactions I had to her content when she was a new name. But now that she's ascended to be respected by so much of the right wing talk shows, it's probably about time I educate myself on how she and her followers see the world. Thank you for the homework.
I'm curious, do you see her opinions making any difference in the way Trump governs? Do her followers seem to be making any demands for Trump to reverse these policies?
Not to bury my own question, but OMG. I just checked out Candace's YouTube channel. Her guest just a few days ago was Ian Carroll, one of the people I was thinking mostly about when I was talking about influencers who can't seem to find themselves able to criticize Trump, despite Trump contradicting Trump's own principles on the issues that Ian cares about the most.
I wanted to know if she asks Ian about the arrests, so I went to the transcript and searched the word "arrest" -- BINGO, at 26 minutes, coming right out of commercial break, she flat out says: "Do you think that there will be a moment where we are seeing Americans arrested? Because I'm so shocked by the fact that they're arresting students that have green cards, and getting them out of, kicking them out of the country, and I'm just going, "was I alive for BLM when the Trump administration in 2016 took the approach that this was really wrong and radical and leftist when people were demanding speech laws and hate speech laws for BLM, and we were talking about how wrong that was, and now they've completely done a 180 – this administration in a 180 – and they're like "but okay but for the special category of Israel, we can... all of this is actually fine, like, woke is fine when it comes to Israel."
And then Ian, who I am guessing is still uncomfortable calling the president out completely, agrees with her but tries to derail Candace's point with other ideas, and Candace just keeps coming back: this is a contradiction of principle, they're hypocrites.
I have to admit, I was wrong about Candace when I thought there wouldn't be anything here to benefit from. Obviously, I cannot say that this 10 minutes was emblematic of everything she says, but I do at least have a respect for anyone who is willing to fight for consistency in political philosophy. I'll have to come back and check out her stuff when other news items require an alternative viewpoint for context.
I think you might want to do a bit more research on Candace. In my opinion, the only reason why she could possibly not be in lockstep with Trump on everything except for his snatching of students who protested against Israel, is because she is well known for embracing antisemitic rhetoric, among her other reprehensible views, like telling Kamala Harris after the election that she could go back to being Indian.
Yeah, Candace should always be taken with a BIG grain of salt: https://www.politifact.com/personalities/candace-owens/
She's also claimed that she has proof that Kamala Harris lied about her ancestry (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/harris-grandparents-candace-owens/) and recently did a deep dive into "proving" that Emmanuel Macron's wife, Brigitte, is a trans woman. She's very good at sounding very confident when she's just weaving a creative story.
That being said, given her audience and reach, what she is saying shouldn't be completely ignored either. Just like I think Ben Shapiro is too often overly-reductive, and he loves nothing more than to punch down a lefty straw man (that he constructed), but he was one of the first on the right to call out Trump's nonsense tariff math and I can applaud him for that small fact.
Thank you both for this information. Just like how Trump's obsession with Obama's birth certificate had nothing to do with the supposed underlying question of eligibility, and had everything to do with using our country's tortured relationship with race to score political points with easily manipulated people, it appears Owens is just as guilty as anyone who's succeeded in the right wing media landscape when it comes to prioritizing ratings above all else, even if it means misleading her followers with lies about something that shouldn't even matter to a voter. Like, really, you're going to claim that you know what the people really care about, so you do a completely false "deep dive" on whether Harris's biological grandma died before she was born? Not only completely false, but like, why should anyone even care? Such a grifter move.
It's such a low bar that it's painful to say it, but yes, like Emily was saying, there can still be some value in seeing some critical thinking going on, even if the motivation of that thinking is coming from the worst of places (antisemitism). And when I say "value" I mean that perhaps it could be used against them for the intention of fighting autocracy. I wish I could just ignore her, but that's kinda how we got here in this situation.
It's got me thinking that in the absence of a better alternative, how can we highlight moments like this for a wider audience? Like, I don't actually want to give Owens any more followers if she's using her platform to stoke hate and division, but perhaps the clip I saw can be extracted to remove the irrelevant stuff and put it back out there with this headline: "Candace Owens and Ian Carroll agree: 'Trump says 'Woke is fine when it comes to Israel.''" That's where my head is at: how do we use this garbage of a situation to work in the interest of democracy?
Hey Emily! I know we've had this back and forth before, but rather than posting quotes from other sources I'm wondering if you've actually listened to her? She explains her stance on Israel quite clearly - she's not antisemitic, she just doesn't blindly give a country a blanket pass on events/people that deserve to be questioned (none of us should!). As Sharon would say: 2 things can be true at the same time. 1) We can never let the annihilation of a people group happen again; and 2) Israeli leaders (like all humans) can sometimes do bad things, and we should be allowed to question.
They never wanted free speech, but instead wanted to say what they’d like with no repercussions. I’ve also found as things are said at the top everyday people think it’s ok to say too. For instance any pride post on FB always has a ton of comments on how that sponsor lost their business. I think before this election most kept some of those thoughts to themselves.
So much for the “party of small government”…
Please don’t totally switch to a news blurb format! These explainer pieces are so unique and helpful!
This is in reaction to the survey, right? I agree: if it’s being offered in addition to everything, great! But hopefully it doesn’t distract from the in depth reporting we are here for. It’s easy to get headlines elsewhere. No need to sacrifice anything for that feature. But I love that they’re asking how to improve an already extremely valuable resource!
Exactly my feeling! There are a TON of newsletters that summarize the daily news (happy to recommend them to anyone who is looking for one!) but this is the only/best resource for getting into the nitty gritty of important issues, as well as tying them into the broader context. It's so valuable as it is, and while I'll always take more Sharon content, I would be really disappointed if this shifted formats to a round up of news of the day.
I would love a newsletter recommendation!
I think the blurb would be in addition to this format.
I hope so but I want to highlight how valuable I find this as it is, and how much I appreciate it.
I wonder what, exactly, an “illegal protest” is?!?! I was under the impression that protest is legal in America. Am I missing something?
I also wonder about this. I think we know the answer - whatever he decides it is in the moment, followed by whatever consequences his followers are willing to carry out in his name.
Not long ago the protests that decimated the community of Portland, OR were 'decided in the moment' to be 'mostly peaceful' and were fully supported by those followers willing to carry it out. Somehow, the Dems decided this was NOT an illegal protest??? Not really fair to let those violent, destructive protests get off the hook, but now we're all really mad at Trump and supporters? I actually don't agree with the random arrests of many of these students, and I appreciate that the Supreme Court has stepped in declaring that they need to have the opportunity to defend themselves before they get deported. But the hypocrisy of the very violent and destructive protests over the past few years, being portrayed as legal and peaceful makes me sick to my stomach.
If the argument is "whatever he decides it is in the moment, followed by whatever consequences his followers are willing to carry out in his name"...then my point is that this goes for both sides of the aisle. I just don't know if people asked themselves these definition questions when businesses were being destroyed.
I don’t recall any violent protesters getting off the hook (I in fact remember the opposite and a lot of people were arrested for destruction of property, etc.?) but I do recall Trump pardoning some 1,000+ “tourists” for storming the capitol.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/74-people-facing-federal-charges-crimes-committed-during-portland-demonstrations
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/new-report-shows-department-of-homeland-security-gathered-intel-on-portland-black-lives-matter-protestors
https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/over-300-people-facing-federal-charges-crimes-committed-during-nationwide-demonstrations
"Between May 25 and Oct. 7, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Oregon filed federal charges against 97 people connected to the Portland unrest. Since then 58 of those cases have either been dismissed outright or are on track for dismissal through a deferred resolution agreement. Thirty-two cases are still pending, with many likely to also end in dismissal according to sources. Seven people have entered guilty pleas."
But, what I think is more to the point - I believe what we're seeing is: if the cause/reason/motivation of the riot/protest lines up with the useful narrative of a particular party...suddenly that riot/protest is excused and justified. I hold the leaders of that party responsible for supporting/encouraging violence and destruction, or more often than not - being silent about what's happening.
Also I don’t understand the point of your quote.. cases being dropped, plea deals, etc. is all at the discretion of the DA and if cases were dismissed it was likely because they did not have sufficient evidence to prove their case.
That’s not some sort of “gotcha” that’s just how our criminal justice system is supposed to work. Were some of those people guilty? Maybe. Who knows.
In a democracy a protest I don’t think needs to be “justified”
You seem to be conflating crime that happens during a protest with the protest itself. Of course looting, etc. is not “protest.” That is crime.
Some people may excuse crime so long as they’re on the side of the matter they agree with but that is also wrong. And again, a separate issue from protests.
A riot and a protest are entirely different things, but you're presenting them as one in the same. Yes, a protest can evolve into a riot, which we have seen happen several times. I don't recall any riots being portrayed as peaceful? But maybe I missed that particular bit of reporting.
Hi Melissa,
I hear the frustration you’re expressing, especially around what feels like inconsistency in how different protests have been described or treated. I agree with you on one important point: protests that cause harm to people or destruction to communities should be taken seriously, no matter who is involved or what their politics are. That kind of harm can't be hand-waved away, and we do ourselves a disservice when we fail to reckon honestly with it.
I think my concern—and what I was trying to get at in my original comment—is the growing pattern of selectively applying terms like “illegal” or “patriotic” depending on whether someone agrees with the cause or not. You're absolutely right that this temptation exists on all sides. But it becomes especially dangerous when leaders with significant power, especially the head of the Executive Branch of government, use vague or shifting definitions to justify the suppression of dissent.
Your point about giving students the chance to defend themselves before facing consequences is a powerful one, and I really appreciate that you're holding space for both concern and nuance. My hope is that we can continue to expect accountability from everyone, without slipping into false equivalency or allowing real harm to go unexamined.
Thanks again for engaging. These aren’t easy conversations, but they matter.
Violence and destruction is illegal. My point is that the protest isn’t illegal. The behavior of some during the protest is wrong. I just get worried when I hear “illegal protest” because, as Americans, we DO have the right to protest and express our support or displeasure of our government and its actions. I felt that way about the BLM protests, the Occupy Wall Street protests, and even Jan 6 protest. I also think it’s important to separate those who are simply protesting from those who are destroying property or assaulting others (or to your point, blocking streets or access for others).
"But the hypocrisy of the very violent and destructive protests over the past few years, being portrayed as legal and peaceful makes me sick to my stomach."
Can you help me understand what you're seeing as hypocrisy? Are you saying that Democratic leaders in charge at that time should have cracked down harder on those protests, because the government should be justified in cracking down hard on protesters? I'm not quite following how the one connects to the other.
I believe the leaders of our country should always crack down on protests that turn violent, assault others, destroy property - no matter the reason for the protest/riot. The government should never crack down on peaceful, legal protests.
The hypocrisy, IMO, comes when riots like what happened in Portland, OR are excused or justified because of 'why' they're causing destruction. Many news outlets tried to convince the public that they were 'mostly peaceful', nothing to see here folks...and this narrative was supported by many Democrat leaders at the time. And I've spoken to business owners in Portland...they shared that it was definitely not peaceful at all.
For the record, I do agree with you about the Portland protests. The overall destruction of the 2020 protests was often overstated (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests#Perception_of_pervasiveness_of_violence), but I don't think that reality is helped by people then overcorrecting and trying to deny that violence and destruction was happening at all.
I'm still not sure that I see how it connects to this specific issue, but I appreciate you clarifying a bit more of your thoughts.
I believe that any protest that attempts to restrict the rights of others (blocking certain students from being able to get to class?) or that leads to assaulting others or destruction of property (ie Portland, Oregon a few years ago; Jan 6; Kenosha, WI; California University 5 days ago; vandalism of Tesla's...). A legal protest should not endanger others or destroy property. Many in America have forgotten this or are deliberately ignoring it.
I agree with you, no one should be prevented from entering a building, no one should be assaulted, and no destruction of property should occur. All of those things are done by a subset of individuals at the protest. That doesn't mean the organizers have sanctioned that behavior. The right to protest is a long-held belief in this country and to have that infringed on by the federal government seems to be the antithesis of what we stand for as a country.
I'm curious if you have that viewpoint of Jan6? All the destruction and assaults were done by a subset of individuals at the protest? That the organizers of the Jan6 peaceful protest (including a guest speaker: Trump) did not sanction the behavior of those individuals?
I can't speak for Gail, but when I think about January 6th I am specifically thinking about those who broke into the Capital building, who wielded weapons against police officers, who left trash and filth inside the building, who entered lawmakers' offices, and who attempted to breach the chamber. Oh, and the ones who planted bombs and caches of weapons around the area. I'm not thinking about the much larger group who gathered for the rally outside or those who stayed away from the melee at the building. While I am deeply uncomfortable with the juxtaposition of bringing a prefabricated gallows to the Capital *alongside* the active calls to hang Vice President Pence, I don't think that by itself the act of making a prop for a protest is inherently violent (I obviously can't speak to the intent of the makers).
President Trump's role is of course muddied by the fact that he was still the President and pointedly refused to diffuse the situation until much later, despite the protestations of those around him, and the fact that the protesters were only there because he refused to concede the election and insisted that VP Pence had the power to 'stop the steal.' He's not responsible for their actions but he is responsible for stoking those lies and then not standing up when it was clear the situation was going south.
Ultimately, everyone is responsible for their own actions. Leaders bear a greater responsibility to set the tone, but they cannot be fully responsible for what people do with that message.
Did Trump not sanction their behavior when he pardoned them all?
Emily summed up my feelings nicely. Anyone who forced their way in, damaged the building, threatened the safety of others, attacked Capitol police, OR those who encouraged and cheered that behavior on, are part of the subset of people who are responsible. If storming the capitol was the goal then the organizers should be included in that group.
Trump’s involvement is more complex. He was the President and he encouraged them to march down there after getting them all worked up using lies about the election. While he didn’t personally storm the building he sanctioned the actions and then pardoned people who did wrong.
This administration’s anti-DEI/anti-immigration stance is a blatant display of bigotry, xenophobia, and hatred, and has no place in our society. We are being moved backward at warp speed.
In addition to everything else wrong with this administration, they are setting a terrible precedent for contracts and grants from the federal government. What university, or business would want to sign any deal that lasts longer than the end of the current president's term? If every president can unilaterally cancel any or every ongoing project or funding that was done under the preceding president, it's too big a financial risk to take.
This is excellent, but once again I find myself so angry. Trump voters never cared about democracy, free speech, or public safety... they instead have installed a cruel, antidemocratic regime that is completely destroying US civil society.
I'm so scared for everyone in ICE detention and everyone threatened by this evil administration. Rumeysa Ozturk is still being denied her asthma medications while she is detained in Louisiana, and Mahmoud Khalil's wife is due to have their baby any day. My heart breaks for what America has become.
Has Trump defined what, exactly, an "illegal protest" is?
..or an illegal boycott 🙄
I would love to understand why ICE agents who are pulling people from the streets are permitted to be plain clothed and wearing masks?? I’m sorry, but this screams human trafficking to me and I have always told my kids that they should scream and fight against anyone who would try to abduct them … and that is what this certainly looks like.
THIS!
Seeing Better Help as a sponsor is so disappointing. They are so predatory, taking advantage of therapists and clients. I hope you'll look for better sponsors.
As it's been mentioned, Better Help had and probably still has some major issues with client confidentiality and data not being stored safely. Also, the pay for therapists is abysmal, which is a problem in a lot of spaces. As in every industry, there are good, ethical therapists and there are some that are not--there's a lack of oversight and accountability for that through Better Help, especially around continuity of care. They are a tech company, not a mental health company, which is clear from their services. While I'm sure some have been helped by a BH therapist, I believe they do more harm than good in the world of mental health. Just my two cents. And I'm just disappointed to see that Sharon would enter a sponsorship with them after so much talk about not having sponsors, this one is just so disappointing.
Can you say more on this? My therapist husband’s take on Better Help is that, though the care may be slightly less professional, it’s at least very accessible - for both the therapist and client. He knows many people who have used it on both sides and hasn’t seen any predation.
There was at least one therapist on YouTube who did an excellent breakdown of why their model is predatory (specifically for the therapists, there's a lot of weird employment and labor stuff), how they're not careful with patient data, and why the model itself is not always ideal for a healthy therapeutic relationship, etc. Better Help then sued her and she had to pull the video down. She did do a follow-up here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pArM2GyHX4g
This top comment on Reddit goes into some more particulars, with links to some articles: https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/18k5l2v/comment/kdpzush/
That original video was from 2022; the Reddit thread is from last year. Overall the impression is that the critiques have been out there for a long time but Better Help is working to keep them suppressed.
I have a friend who used BetterHelp whose "therapist" gave genuinely harmful advice and he had to stop seeing her when she had a serious psychiatric break. It totally put him off therapy altogether and I think did a lot more harm than good.
I too had a horrible experience with a therapist on BetterHelp. It was 2021 and I offhandedly mentioned my daughter doing online school, which was her preference at the time even though in person school had resumed. Therapist went off for several minutes about how much of a horrible idea that was, how she really needed to be in school, that there must be something wrong with her if she wanted to do it online, etc etc. Totally derailed the conversation we were having about my parenting struggles, plus she gave me a whole new issue to worry about; thinking I was a bad mom for letting my kid do online school during a pandemic! She was always late too. Worst therapy experience of my life.