@wjmaggos @dcc

> p is always ridiculously verbose to distract from very basic arguments when he doesn't have a good response.

Not only are you an asshole, but an asshole that has accused me of being deceptive about my arguments. Here it is, in very brief, very simple words:

You wish to maintain the orthodoxy and prevent anyone that is weird from poking holes in it, so you are fine with censorship. Your alleged opposition wants to replace the current status quo with their own orthodoxy. I am convinced that a status quo that cannot stand some words is not worth preserving, and being a weird fucker myself, am interested in ensuring that whatever the orthodoxy is, it is safe to oppose or ignore it.

You are happy to deliver proscription but without paying attention to the situation that you tell other people how they should handle it. You never answer a question, you never ask a question, you never actually converse. You're a blind megaphone, a chatbot made of meat, an inert coward hiding behind rhetoric to support the status quo. This means you're safe to ignore and time would be better spent dealing with whoever originated the ideas you parrot.

Too many words for the attention span of someone that doesn't think about these things beyond "$current_thing good, I support $current_thing"?