Because wealthy people don't have a dayjob to lose.
> in all likelihood every argument you will come up with will have already been written about in far more depth elsewhere.
Yeah, that's the point of discussion, bringing up things and ideas, original or otherwise. However, even bringing up what has been written in recent centuries is a no-go (a mild example, Huxley). The hope is that by stopping making these points, they will be forgotten
Huxley is to me a curious example because many of the themes written about on that page is quite mainstream if we ignore the specific dated references, even amongst "normies". The idea that we are more like Brave New World than 1984 is so mainstream that it is a fairly common argument to drop on social media.
Losing your dayjob is far from a guarantee just on that basis. This is what I wanted to illustrate, that many of the ideas we think are forbidden are just ideas that are natural for our material circumstances.
The irony is that even if we are discussing anti-totalitarian measures as in this essay, we are still adopting the 'architect' mindset towards the rest of the population.
Because wealthy people don't have a dayjob to lose.
> in all likelihood every argument you will come up with will have already been written about in far more depth elsewhere.
Yeah, that's the point of discussion, bringing up things and ideas, original or otherwise. However, even bringing up what has been written in recent centuries is a no-go (a mild example, Huxley). The hope is that by stopping making these points, they will be forgotten
> what you consider touchy.
Any of the subjects in this essay https://www.huxley.net/bnw-revisited/