> the camp’s liberal mind virus spread like wildfire thereafter.

I guess I'm still just confused about this. Can you connect the dots between liberal values and how this situation played out?

in general: "liberal mind virus" is imho, a useless phrase at best, and an actively conversation-deteriorating one generally. Other people _do_ have legitimately held belief systems and assumptions that don't match yours, and arrive at them through a complex chain of events. It feels to me as if you are acting out the same derision you claim "hyper-liberals" show to their perceived outgroup by dismissing it as a "mind virus", removing them from the category of "normal person" so your assumption can hold

Eventually, because this guy felt unsafe multiple members of the rest of the camp put their hands up as feeling unsafe. I call it liberal mind virus because of the “safety” focus. A normal person would see small challenges and discomforts as part and parcel of daily life, and they certainly wouldn’t have safety concerns as grown up (mostly) men from a small girl. Everything was also taken out of context too - they all knew her and had camped together for 10+ years. It was basically a group-think public lynching based on some false sense of morality.

> they certainly wouldn’t have safety concerns as grown up (mostly) men from a small girl

Why? I can see the idea of “he can (probably) overpower her”, but is that the only valid metric for safety? I think a lot of reasonable people would say no. What you actually do about that is perhaps more up in the air - sometimes it is saying “you just gotta deal with it”, like you said, but that is a lot worse of an answer when it comes to personal dynamics and consent

> I call it liberal mind virus because of the “safety” focus > … group-think public lynching based on some false sense of morality

I also promise you these are not exclusive or exceptional traits among liberals. It’s extremely easy for me to frame the (imho unreasonable) actions of some conservatives I know with that exact same language - do they have a “mind virus”? I think it’s important to take them seriously rather than dismiss them like that, as tempting as it might be

By all means I don’t know the situation and don’t want to interrogate you, but please reflect on: is it really the fault of hyper-liberal partisan groupthink, or was it a case of humans being messy and messily using the language they have to paper over it, or was it a case where “normal” people across the spectrum might agree upon a little reflection even if you still think it’s wrong?

I think you might receive less blowback and better conversation by avoiding vague, incendiary, hyper-partisan language

> It was basically a group-think public lynching…

You’ve essentially described the ending of every Survivor episode.

> they certainly wouldn’t have safety concerns as grown up (mostly) men from a small girl

I take it you’ve never had to contain a raging toddler.

> It’s supposed to be camping together but then there’s pages of rules, documents, charity companies, and letters written by lawyers (yes, still the above).

Based on the org and event's own stated goals, and the reality of what most of the participants get out of it, it's not just about "camping together", it's at least in part about building a temporary city focused around art, expression, and a set of shared principles.

anyway, to the rest of your comment, Burning Man absolutely is a mixed bag, as any dense place with ~65,000 will be, and it sure isn't a place for everyone, but decrying it as "corruption of the soul" and "sodom on earth", seems quite extreme imho

> you’re making them feel unsafe because of some normal thing you did

It might help the discussion to say what that "normal thing" is. Is it truly a normal innocuous thing that is fine to repeat here, or was it say, using slurs or acting in an anti-social, cruel way? the rest of your comment, as well as my lived experience, really makes me believe it was something more akin to the second, even if you don't actively view it that way. I'm happy to be wrong, but maybe reflect on how your vagueness and framing primes that sort of reading?

It ultimately does depend on how you choose to define "sex". This turns out to be a hard question, with different definitions making sense in different contexts. Is it gametes, chromosomes, genitals, hormones, something else, or some mix of all of that? What happens when these characteristics that can change, do? How do we classify people who have mismatches between some of these categories of characteristics? What assumptions are safe to make about people of different sexes?

My point is, our interpretation of these observable biological processes and facts, and our response to them, is socially constructed. There are many Doctors and Scientists who do very much agree with this complex view, just as I'm sure there are those who believe in a strong binary like you. I see the complex view here as much more useful, especially in navigating things like human dynamics and healthcare needs in ways that benefit us all

> Lutke made a mortal sin of disagreeing on suffrage requirements

I think this is a very tame and apologetic and dishonest way to put it. Suffrage and voting is how people have a voice in the future of their democracy. He advocates for a policy that materially removes that right, that say in the future, from those who already have little power. I don’t know how else to emphasize that it’s more than “they disagree a bit with him and now he’s an impure sinner”, it’s more akin to “this rich dude wants to rewrite the rules to give himself more power and us less”, which is a sober assessment of his policy. I think people actively trying to avoid giving him any more money or power is a very understandable reaction to that

I think ultimately some parts of ideology are bound to and by the reality we live in, and acknowledging that reality gives a good answer here for when _it seems like_ people freaking out at an “impure idea” - is there a documented harm that we can look at?

Many people boycott Elon and his products. Do you raise this same “moral purity” complaint about them? Does it ever go in the other direction?

I think technology and how we build it is deeply tied to us as social, communal beings. Tech can be a reflection of our capabilities, our values. Tech shapes our reality in turn. It’s worth thinking about, being critical of, and believing people when they say what they believe