> But we are all very much entitled to criticize what Altman is doing, and we would be doing Altman no favors by withholding that criticism. Perhaps, but it's

> But we are all very much entitled to criticize what Altman is doing, and we would be doing Altman no favors by withholding that criticism. Perhaps, but it's a slippery slope to a loosely-defined moral litmus test that is in the eye of the beholder, a fashionable "in group" set of beliefs which are not actually subject to rational scrutiny but are instead tenets of a creed of allegiance. They are hyperbolic and intended mainly as a signal to others, like a patch stitched onto a sleeve or a badge worn on one's clothing, which side the person is on. For example, consider this creed of statements largely unsupported by fact (caveat: I do not support either candidate and actively oppose both): I consider Donald Trump a threat to American democracy and prosperity. I believe the 40% of the American people supporting his candidacy are deeply disturbed, damaged human beings who are animated by Trump's racism and hatred. I am certain that Donald Trump has sexually assaulted many women, and his criminal sexual acts are on par with the worst sexual predators of history. I am certain that Donald Trump's campaign is in collusion with the Russian government simply to get Donald in office so that he can do business in Russia and extract personal profit for himself (unlike HRC who is motivated by altruism and service, not personal ambition or greed). I believe that in spite of being nominated by major American political parties, Donald Trump and HRC are vastly different human beings with vastly different ambitions and quality of judgment. I believe it is our duty to our daughters and future generations to do everything possible to stop Donald Trump from gaining power, including socially castigating and penalizing his supporters in any way possible, including "unfriending" on social media. I believe that focusing on the outrageous allegations of Trump's kissing and groping behavior are far more important than comparing the two candidates stances on issues and comparing the practicalities of their stated policy aims. I am certain that Donald Trump intends to challenge the election results if he loses, and that he's planning to incite violence in an attempt to gain office. These statements pull the dialogue away from facts, logic, debate, falsifiability, etc., and make it about raw power, which is coercive and not rational or meritocratic.