Let me start by saying that your post seems sincere, but I believe extremely misguided. I'm going to post my thoughts, in detail. I'm sorry but I'm going to hav

Let me start by saying that your post seems sincere, but I believe extremely misguided. I'm going to post my thoughts, in detail. I'm sorry but I'm going to have to ignore your assertion that I decided it was "satire" retroactively. That's primarily ridiculous but also insulting. Now, let's get to the meat of your complaint. You accuse me of "defending the status quo" and nowhere did I do that (except in the final paragraph...which we'll get to a second). And yet, somehow you found it. Why? I'm guessing because you wanted to hear it. Let me show you... All you have to do is bring up topics like fiat currency, the gold standard, money creation, the Federal Reserve and inflation. It’s like walking into a southern church and bringing up evolution. You went so far as to call this statement "ideological". I'm sorry if this is harsh, but that is flat our ridiculous. Ridiculous. You cannot reasonably claim that this established any pattern whatsoever of position, status quo or not. I mentioned fiat currency versus the gold standard, money creation, the Federal Reserve, and inflation. Nowhere in this statement did I make any judgement on any position, for or against, status quo or not. Nowhere in this statement did I claim any of those positions, on either side, is equivalent to creationism, either. Nowhere in this statement am I advocating any position on any of those issues, either. Yet you seem to have found it. All I said was that those topics were likely to degenerate into flame wars, just like evolution in a southern church. The statement about evolution is the more controversial one! Next, the final paragraph. It came after no less than 5 paragraphs of meta-discussion on the -exact- behavior I was ironically exhibiting in that paragraph. I wrote 5 paragraphs about the way people online act when they discuss these issues, and then I proceeded to do the -exact-same-thing- and you question whether or not it was intentional? I don't know how I could make it more clear. I spent 5 paragraphs explaining it. I even added a note. I wrote it in several comments. What if I'd put a smiley at the end? Would that have eased your frayed nerves? Would that have made you realize there was a more subtle point in play here? Furthermore, the only two paragraphs you quoted in the entire article are the first and the last. You've read so deep into me mentioning a bunch of issues, that you actually think you've read advocacy. You've taken my one sarcastic paragraph and asked if I really meant it. You skipped the 7 in the middle that discuss, without fail, the issue of the conversation itself. In other words, the actual important part of my argument is conspicuously missing from your analysis. Now, let's get onto the most important point: I didn't call you a nutjob. Yes, I know very well that I actually say "you are a nutjob" not once but twice in the updated version, but I'm still not calling you a nutjob. When you actually read the middle paragraphs and realize the final paragraph is nothing but a tongue-in-cheek imitation of the -precise- behavior I'm criticizing, you will realize that the last paragraph was simply me parodying the behavior in question. It was intentional hypocrisy. Again, I spent 5 paragraphs explaining this. Now, if you don't mind, I'd like to make some completely unsubstantiated guesses as to what's really going on. (If this doesn't apply to you, I apologize, but I got 10 emails and you can find a dozen comments on reddit that it fits the bill perfectly for). You didn't really read it. You probably skipped to the last paragraph, took it seriously, and got emotionally involved. Probably because no less than one of the things in the final paragraph argues with some macro-economic truth that you hold. Ever since you've been emotionally involved, you haven't actually really read what I wrote. You've pigeonholed my argument into what you wanted to hear. You've become defensive. If you bother to sit down and read it, from start to finish, without your preconceptions that I am attacking your ideals, you'll find that not only am I not saying what you think I am saying, but more importantly that you are proving my point. PS: I spent about 30 minutes composing and editing this for you. I hope you at least read it. I got discouraged about 10 minutes ago, however, when it was already downmodded to 0. I finished anyway.