> addiction... on monumental scale... no doubt truly brilliant... nigh on impossible.
What if you've made a fundamental mistake or two in your otherwise astute analysis? That would be innocent by itself but jumping to grand generalizations may not be.
Well, I'm just citing sociologists and researchers who point to the overwhelming evidence. That said, one has to be a mushroom or blind not to have noticed the fact.
Besides, no one likes to be told home truths, it's why shooting the messenger is such a common activity.
> Well, I'm just citing sociologists and researchers
"Sociologists and researchers" are well aware on which side their bread is buttered. Or do you think they are less aware than you about being under continuous surveillance?
Then everybody there ends up in the chorus of half truths and you end up sucked in their wake.
What if you've made a fundamental mistake or two in your otherwise astute analysis? That would be innocent by itself but jumping to grand generalizations may not be.