This is just one a long long number of Deboer articles all cut from the same cloth. There's a whole (low) culture of reactionaryism & contrarianism whose exist

This is just one a long long number of Deboer articles all cut from the same cloth. There's a whole (low) culture of reactionaryism & contrarianism whose existence is to rile people up & make "yet you participate in society, curious" sound like a smart edgy take that makes them better than everyone else. There are some sources of submissions that are almost always like this. And we keep wandering in without context, taking the article at face value & trying to engage honestly, without seeing the underlying bias & context. The presence of discussions around Deboer submissions, to me, is a canary in the coal mine example of one of the primary weaknesses of social networks, which is that we come in context-free to every reshare rebroadcast out. Unless it's Barack Obama or DJT most people won't generally have a model of the implicit biases & slant of what they're reading, & wont have the time energy interest or access to go hunt down what these biases are. We are forever at risk of Freddie Deboer's (and unherd/quilette/reason) naively & slyly (that is, without having ascertained the greater context, upon which it becomes an honest acceptance) tainting us with their elaborately/conversionarily argued reactionaryism or whatever other ism.