>...But, I also think the use of language is interesting; there is no discussion of the >science, merely a response of crying "class warfare" and dismissal of

>...But, I also think the use of language is interesting; there is no discussion of the >science, merely a response of crying "class warfare" and dismissal of the video... Yes, I find this quite interesting and a possibly a significant new variation on the way groups maintain coherence by avoiding disruptive information. In the past I suppose the approach employed to avoid ideas that challenge preconceived notions was an authority figure would simply produce a list of banned books and forbidden topics. Maybe this process is a little deprecated in this era of greater easy access to information. So this new technique seems to be self imposed and seems to work by marking undesirable ideas with keywords instantly recognizable by the group. In this case apparently either to warn the viewer not to look at the material at all or to stimulate a rage filled attitude to the matter before viewing and thus eliminating any potential impact. In essence this new process seems to use the web to essentially add metadata to objectionable ideas signaling what attitude to have about them and that viewing the information is to be avoided.