>you can really do only one of two things: fight the disease or pretend that it does not exist. Choosing to fight the disease will make enemies of your friends

>you can really do only one of two things: fight the disease or pretend that it does not exist. Choosing to fight the disease will make enemies of your friends, it will rob you of your peace of mind, it will rob you of your faith in humanity, and bring you no closer to curing said disease. The choice of CS departments to adopt the latter strategy is one made either from either wisdom or game theory, and it is in the self-interest of rational actors. >But, Brethern, I ask you: is this honest? Is not our prolonged silence fretting away Computing Science's intellectual integrity? Are we decent by remaining silent? If not, how do we speak up? If you are vexed by these questions, ask not the very same, but rather whether the intellectual integrity of public discourse (including nominally professional subsets of it) is worth your sense of safety, your sense of sanity, and your social circle, because you'll pay with those every time you play the unwinnable game of trying to convince the world of uncomfortable truths.