My immediate thoughts, inline below.

> On Jun 2, 2014, at 13:55, Jaromil <jaromil@???> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 02 Jun 2014, Cody R Wilson wrote:
>>
>> Was I really just called a conservative?
>
> lol no he writes
>
> ""
> Don’t get me wrong. Wilson is a subtle and interesting thinker, and it
> is undoubtedly unfair

God, do I hate this sort of writing. I cut it off here, but the entire sentence is pretty awful. (But ever so euphonious!) Amir may best be prepared to intuit why. I make the assumption that most speakers of a conlang have seen the effects studied in cognitive linguistics. Though Esperanto isn't lojban 😉 it's still far clearer than English. This is but one example; the thing is rife with it. I'd request the author pore over Politics and the English Language. It's a mere seven pages. This writing style is the cause of the problem below:

> to suggest that he really believes that one can
> escape the power dynamics of the messy real world by finding salvation
> in a kind of internet Matrix. What he is really trying to do is to
> invoke one side of the crypto-anarchist mantra of ‘privacy for the weak,
> but transparency for the powerful’.
>
> That is a healthy radical impulse, but the conservative element kicks in
> when the assumption is made that somehow privacy alone is what enables
> social empowerment.

And halt. Strawman. We cannot seek a conclusion from a basis of illogic. In patronizing Latin, ex falso quodlibet.

“Privacy alone enables social empowerment.”

The author proceeds to argue this false premise as if it were the original premise. Presumably this wasn't malicious: modern English unfortunately makes this sort of poor thinking all too easy.

> That is when it…

Blah, blah, blah.

—J