This is what is called a "political article"<p>In it, the author takes up a series of positions that he feels we should also have and makes a case why they are better than other positions. (In this case other positions weren't really defended at all rationally and instead just assumed to be insane, which makes this a _really bad_ political article)<p>The problem with posting this on HN is that we have two main choices: agree with the writer, in which case our response amounts to "heck yeah!" which is information-free. Or other main choice is to disagree with the author, which amounts to "shit no!" which is also information-free.<p>Nuanced responses, along the lines of taking each point and ripping it apart (easy enough to do here) only elicit arguments from both the heck-yeah and shit-no crowd. Eventually the two crowds just go at each other with platitudes.<p>I'm not saying there is no merit in discussing some rant like this...<p>On second thought I AM saying there is no merit in discussing this. It's an awful piece. Flagged.