Oh, oh, a bad faith actor just produced some "good material" (well, it's awful, rancid, and nasty) which gives me inspiration on what to add to part 2. Will I be saved from writer's block?
Alright, updated part 2. Here's the original (from November I think it was the 10th or 11th?):
A month after I made that post, I reviewed the situation once again, and I have the following things to add:
While (11) is mentioned here, the rarity actually seems to be common knowledge in some circles, and those aren't the only possible examples (given the sensitive subject matter, I have avoided entirely going into that as it doesn't add much, we're not having a contest here). I've also seen no compelling evidence to the contrary. It's mainly advocates of censorship with vague "fear points". And once again, what they're typically gunning for is very broad censorship.
As a rule of thumb, people who just focus on apparent "fear points" are muddying the water, poisoning the well of useful discourse, giving bad actors an air of legitimacy, and undermining fundamental rights. Don't be that person.
There are a few people who make vague non-particularized arguments. These can be quite low quality (and are likely dealt with by an already answered point, even if it's not someone's preferred direction to solve that argument). These are more like mantras or slogans than actual arguments and aren't worth wasting a breath on. And at the end of the day, mantras have roots, and therein lies already made points.
One mantra appears to be inspired by QAnon type theories. Yet again, this goes back to the deviancy theory, nuance, and complex matters being over-simplified in a manner which is very discriminative and harmful. That's just not how the world works, and it's not helpful.
One seemed to have a rather rigid mentality (34), though I suspect it was more motivated "nit-picking". Honestly, this one probably falls under deviancy theory, that's why I didn't cover it here. It's the pseudo-scientific deviancy theory which conjures up ideas of "strange deviants I can't possibly understand".
In one case, someone made stronger claims in more public facing areas, and in more obscured areas, offered up far more dubious language, and even seemed to neutralize their own points. Strong claims are also seemingly supported by one-off opinions from randoms with no expertise or reference point. Cherry picking still seems very prevalent.
