Political parties do this too- conservatives are characterized by liberals as rejecting science, liberals are characterized by conservatives as being irresponsi

Political parties do this too- conservatives are characterized by liberals as rejecting science, liberals are characterized by conservatives as being irresponsible or pot smokers. The trouble with this argument is that sometimes the characterizations are true. For instance, the neo-conservative movement in the United States is rather well characterized by a rejection of science, including evolution, climate change, and sex education (that is, abstinence-only sex ed has been shown empirically to be useless). It is completely valid to point this rejection of science out, and moreover, it is useful and constructive to do so. By demonstrating that neo-conservative politics deviate from that which can be demonstrated scientifically, we as a society can move more towards policies which are well-supported by reality. I don't mean to focus too much on a single example, but rather, I'm trying to use that example to make a point: presenting accurate, if inflammatory, characterizations of one's opponents is not harmful to society, but is in fact part of how we engage in constructive discourse. By the same token, as I pointed out in a comment below, Apple has taken actions which are strikingly similar to those warned about in an exaggerated manner by the novel 1984; to wit, they have built an architecture for censorship and have applied it to restrict the ability of adults to use their iOS devices to partake of pornography or even of more mildly sexual applications. To point out the irony in Apple taking these actions, given their ad campaign back in 1984, is not to "ideologically immunize" consumers, but rather to make a valid and useful point. I do think that point is beyond the immediate goals of Motorola, however, and that their current campaign is riding on the bandwagon of valid criticisms, using them for short-term profit. That is not a destructive thing to do, however, insofar as the original criticisms are well-founded.