Many, many people believe that the hands-off approach has, in the fullness of the history that brings us here today, demonstrably failed.
The argument is that we have more violent extremists, not less, and they've been quite successful in using large public platforms to recruit and radicalize new members. The "organic zeitgeist" has had plenty of time to do its thing, and it really hasn't.
You're offering a straw man argument, by way of false dichotomy: kafkaesque hellscape vs total freedom happyland. It's not helpful to the conversation, imo, and doesn't actually engage with the issues at hand. It's polemics, not a solution.
1) Chill w the superflous language. Nobody is impressed with how much debt you've saddled over your phd.
2) You cite nothing substantiating these claims.
Leave it to a woke phd to misrepresent a claim to win an argument.
> total freedom happyland
No you dumb fuck.
Im saying that the process of people sorting out a collective, integrated social morality is going to be complex.
Where the fuck did I say it was going to be easy?
> kafkaesque
Yes, its a big deal. How long do you think the british people are going to put up with their daughters being raped and people being stabbed? Do you think that "acceptance" for Khans woke bullshit will continue into perpetuity? Do you think there's some really mean fucking people who are basting in anger + isolation because they've been pushing out of pleasant society?
Does such a thought seem plausible at all? What do you think happens before a coup of any kind? Someone capable sits it isolation + gets really fucking pissed off.
This is the problem with having discussions with arm-chain intellectuals in a space where they can behave with impunity.
You're happy to attempt to win an argument by misrepresenting my claims. The intelligencia of the bay area is absolutely reprehensible -- and I know, I live here with this bullshit.
Fuck, would I love to have these discussions face to face.
> kafkaesque
Lets sit down and get a coffee and chat over this shit and well see which of us is more capably evil.
The argument is that we have more violent extremists, not less, and they've been quite successful in using large public platforms to recruit and radicalize new members. The "organic zeitgeist" has had plenty of time to do its thing, and it really hasn't.
You're offering a straw man argument, by way of false dichotomy: kafkaesque hellscape vs total freedom happyland. It's not helpful to the conversation, imo, and doesn't actually engage with the issues at hand. It's polemics, not a solution.