I think your point is discrete by creating a dichotomy in which you are either "right" or "wrong" while i'd err on the side of "the world is more complicated th

I think your point is discrete by creating a dichotomy in which you are either "right" or "wrong" while i'd err on the side of "the world is more complicated than it looks". You can't really win, but slowly morph the world from one view to another. In the process, your perception of what is right or wrong changes and thus, the terminal position is never the one you initially expected. One thing I'm willing to bet on is that any extreme position will be seen as wrong 50 years from now on. The hive mind of the western global village might sway 180 degrees, like it did on the question of race in the 20th century. From genes to apology. But the "intellectual" belief about race is perhaps still as wrong as ever, and we understand comparatively little about its position in society. Likewise, we don't have any clue how the human mind is affected by being closely connected through the internet. Or for the fact that the private individual was eradicated for the public group. Or for the total persistence of information from every human being connected via IP-addresses to everyone else in the ultimate peer-to-peer network ever envisioned. It is so easy to blame someone as a reactionary who won't understand the position to which the world moved. But reality is perhaps that they have seen things oblivious to everyone else. In other words, I think the human society is so complex we don't really understand how little we understand of it.