[Udik]

It suggests that I hate self-righteous people who present their own views as universal facts about what absolutely can and cannot be done. I think this is how the space of everyone's freedom is steadily retreating, and I'm sick of it.

On the other hand, your comment suggests that you are someone who tries to win a discussion by clumsily insulting his opponent.

[dbtx]

I apologize. Obvious sarcasm blew right over my head and I need to hurry up and stop pretending. I feel like my effective IQ right now is between 90 and 100 at best. The supposed reasons for that are all wrapped up in Facebook drama (minus Facebook) and totally off-topic.

I think that we do partly agree on a thing. The way so many are-- as I like to put it-- running massive marketing campaigns to define and redefine "acceptable" and "unacceptable" is pretty horrible. We probably don't agree on which definitions should stick or fall away, but that's off topic, too.

"Is that an accident" was not entirely meant to be the accusing rhetorical question that it seems like now. It's also, what's your angle? And you answered that.

P.S. (hating people with stupid views) < (hating their stupid views)

[bilekas]

> everyone's freedom is steadily retreating

Thats a bit of a stretch.. Common decency about CP is pretty much universal. But if that triggers you. Too bad.

[dbtx]

Discussions don't have opponents or winners.