Who cares dog, it’s a number on a silly website it literally does not matter. Upvotes are equally toxic in that sense, you determine your value based on the votes of others? That’s just treating your own mind as if it was a stranger.

Eh, I can not say that I agree that people’s attachment to privacy is purely a matter of the current status quo. I think a human desire for privacy, at least in some contexts, is innate. Sure, I’ll grant that it’s extremity in the modern era is due to the oppressive and abusive state, but I think people have an certain in-born aversion to being overly judged and observed.

Well, I simply cannot agree that anything that would notably increase human misery could be considered optimal in the first place. So I suppose on first facts we simply disagree.

Well let’s consider that logical validity, while useful for objective facts and conditions, might not be a good a benchmark for things that humans are emotionally attached to? Is it an unreasonable thing to point out that most humans simply do not (and will not) use the formal system of logic, even if trained in it, as the basis on which they emotionally relate to their experience? What I am trying to say is just that, while it might be logically valid it is not emotionally valid, and that really does matter. Would you enforce a world that is reasonable and logical, but makes the people who live in it uncomfortable and miserable?

most argumentation from your side is just common trolling or logical fallacies, which makes me think that I’m correct.

This, itself, is a logical fallacy. A fallacious argument is not “incorrect” or “wrong” it’s just invalid, meaning it does not meet the formal requirements of logical validity, not much else. Things can be both fallacious and correct.

Gross, reds? Seriously?

I think the art here is having both good faith, and also being a guide. If you’re simply being an elitist or an obscurantist, you’re merely being an asshole.

Horny brain can override a lot of better judgement.

Hell is other people.