Its understandable and reasonable that we can't read everything everyone writes prior to responding to them. In order to learn you have to risk being offended,

Its understandable and reasonable that we can't read everything everyone writes prior to responding to them. In order to learn you have to risk being offended, in order to think you have to risk being offensive. Its a core requirement for intelligent thought and I generally assume anyone I'm talking to is intelligent otherwise I wouldn't bother. As for what I've said, since you don't address any of the specific points I made that you disagree with, I find its likely you didn't bother reading, though I realize it is a lot of text. I've had a lot of people say they agree with the most or in part like that so I'm skeptical. If I'm wrong, that's fine. Feel free to come back to it if that is the case. If not, that's fine too, though I would have preferred you being direct; you could have just said I'm not going to read that. What I've said is supported, historically, or is growing in support as its documented, and in either case whatever the reason its your loss if you don't take anything away from it or do your own research. I firmly believe its better to give people the opportunity to find out something they didn't know rather than shut down anything that a person disagrees with because its the disagreements that often lead both parties engaged in discussion to a better understanding assuming its not one-way as this was/appears. Most of what you read consisted of opinions (regarding social media), or material I've found after reading a lot of history and economics books. specifically WW2, Iran coup of 1953, Vietnam, Stasi, Fall of USSR (Russia), China (Mao) History is an acquired taste, and unless you're talking to a historian, how would you get anyone else interested in history but by sharing those insights and recommending they do their own research? The nice thing about it learning history, it lets you learn things from previous generations that people generally don't recognize as being important precursors because you are working on a larger time horizon cyclical things become more apparent. Many times the people who are often regarded later as visionaries are often simply those who were well educated in a wide swath of history. As a result they generally know what's been tried before and the challenges and don't commit to repeating the same mistakes. As an anecdote, there was a roman senator who wrote many things about the politics of Rome that if you hadn't known the origin of the author or his writing you might easily confuse it since it compares surprisingly close to descriptions of modern American politics. I tried to provide enough detail that if you wanted, you could go and read more about it, though with propaganda you'll have to wade into a sea of of misinformation. Also with that material,you can't generally assume anything is truth by default, you have often to approach it as false and prove something is true and without a detrimental hidden agenda. As for the rest, you shouldn't take things personally, opinions are semi-fluid, they change as we age and acquire more accurate or useful information and everyone makes mistakes regardless of their intent, you can't be human and not make mistakes. I'm no exception, but everything I said I've vetted before saying. Edit: In case you didn't notice, I made a specific point in not attacking you but instead at that opinion, you probably confounded what I said when reading, as that's an important distinction. I said what I think about that opinion in my previous response. You and your opinion are definitely not the same thing, nor static, and HN edits to attempt clarify that point don't necessarily work that well. It would be nice if HN had a way to preview a draft ahead of time. These small text boxes are ridiculously difficult to work with when trying to write cohesively. Spell check would be nice too.