> I like how you pointed out a strawman in my argument with another strawman. Not every generalization is a strawman. A strawman isn't about generalization it'

> I like how you pointed out a strawman in my argument with another strawman. Not every generalization is a strawman. A strawman isn't about generalization it's about simplification of opponent points to the point that they make no sense. In which way did i simplify anything about your point with the aim of contradicting it? In fact imho i did the opposite: i took what i believe to be the actual valid core of it (superficiality etc) and said i agreed with it. Still you're not answering to my rebuttal: your initial point (1) contains no substance since anybody worth discussing with across the political spectrum agrees to some form of it (i do and OP most surely do as i pointed out, and seeing you cite andreesen we are definitely wide apart on the that spectrum, which in itself is ok) and (2) is part of a general pattern of passing opinions widely shared inside a well-known thought-school as being something "unpopular", which is a whole minefield of bogus concepts that get nice dialogues derailed into flames.