50656E6973

>This is whataboutism, and it detracts from issues instead of productively extending the conversation

This is a self contradictory statement. Calling someone's argument "whataboutism" is itself a logical fallacy designed to prevent extension of the conversation into a larger context

>If this very comment had been about some unrelated topic...it would be right for the comment to be censored from this discussion

By that same logic, we should censor your comment, because this article is not about filtering bot/adspam from small niche forums; It's about mass censorship and manipulation of organic political opinions on platforms with billions of users.

>The unique problem of the internet is that it allows bad ideas to infect, fester, and mutate in the minds of others at a speed never seen before, without the natural safeguards that we've always had: peer-review and social acceptance. That leads to a spill-over of bad ideas into the public discourse which, in turn, resets society's definition for what kind of ideas are acceptable. A few rapid cycles of this, and we got our Post Truth World

This is precisely the same logic held by the Church during the Inquisition as they were safeguarding Truth from the Scientific Revolution and the evil of the printing press.

>Modern philosophies that disregard the special place in nature of Man, and deny Man's nature, are a mess and lead to some pretty horrible outcomes, such as the dehumanization of undesirable groups.

Which philosophies?

It seems you've got it backwards.

Abrahamic religions, for example, created an "I-It" relationship by declaring nature to be subordinate to mankind in Genesis.

The theory of evolution and the science of ecology defines the relationship as communal and interrelated, or "I-Thou".

Indeed. And yet life expectancy is still lower for men, and is getting worse. Can we not talk about that for a moment?

Your anecdotal dismissal supports the parent commenter's point.

Money can create popularity.

>Do you actually have something concrete in mind here

Ideals codified in law. For example, the 1rst and 2nd Amendments.

When generalizing with national boundaries, I of course do not mean to imply that literally everyone born within those imaginary lines thinks the same.

Are there more specific categories I could use for these ideological classifications?

Using large geographic/national boundaries to generalize ideological categories is of course inherently erroneous to a degree; it's like the Zen Buddhist teaching of "a finger pointing at the moon". You seem to be getting hung up on the finger.

>Why there are people who welcome the rise of Chinese/CCP hegemony when they are actively looking to crush [2] "Western values" is beyond me.

Perhaps it's because Big Tech is full of people who favor Chinese ideals over Western Enlightenment/American ideals, such as:

-Group identity over individuality

-Mass tracking/surveillance over privacy

-Cenorship over free speech

-State control/power over self defense