Which formerly moderate views do you believe are being de-normalized by "editors and academics with agendas"?

- Authoritarian ideologies, such as fascism and communism, have no place in our society and their proponents must be shunned

- People should be judged (i.e. admitted to college or hired) by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin

- Mass import of foreign workforce by corporations is not being done in pursuit of any high-minded ideals but to drive the wages down, and it is not something we must embrace or celebrate

If you agree with any of the above, congratulations -- you're a fascist.

Please don't take HN threads into ideological flamewar. We should resist going there, not jump in first thing.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

As a “libertarian”, I have to hold my tongue and smile in most conversations.

The Overton Window has become so shockingly small, that most “normals” educated in the last 20 or so years no longer even realize that they have been mentally neutered.

I mean, of all the different libertarian philosophies, most of them are radical, in so much as they all seek to distance the individual from systems of government and social institutions. Since those things are what most people use day to day, and in the US only one of the two political parties leans that way, it does put you in a minority camp whose views can be felt as a sort of existential threat. (And honestly, politics and religion should both be kept out of most conversations)

Everyone is a libertarian — when it comes to their own liberties.

Other ideologies vary, insofar as they devalue and restrict differing sunsets of other peoples’ liberty.

So it is always strange to me that valuing other’s liberty as highly as my own is now being considered as “radical”.

And, I’m always ready and willing to lay down my life to defend my liberty — and yours.

I find is also strange that the political ideologies deemed non “radical” are willing to demand that I defend their liberty with my life — but would throw me and my loved ones under the bus without blinking.

But, I’m the “radical” one...

It sounds a bit like you've got an axe to grind more than you want to actually discuss political philosophy, and that might be more the reason why other people don't want to discuss it. (And for what it's worth, 'radical' isn't pejorative... Pretty much anything that isn't social progressivism or social conservativism is radical in this country)

FWIW, I'd note that Snowden was a CIA contractor, not operative or spy, so his understanding of why compartmentalization is done should maybe be taken with a grain of salt.

(For example, another---and if I understand correctly, the main---reason compartmentalization is done is so a single compromised agent can't give "the whole farm" to an enemy intelligence organization. It's not about protecting agents from 'the real story,' but from making sure the enemy doesn't have a picture of the agency's understanding of 'the real story').

Both aspects are far from mutually exclusive.

This does not change the fact that splitting people and processes in little groups is an excellent way to get otherwise unspeakable deeds done.

Ben Griffin, an ex UK SF trooper turned pacifist, talks about compartmentalisation in detail [0] (00:30:10).

Yes, Goodwins law. And yes, Ben has an obvious agenda. In our context here, he does bring forth a few valid and concrete examples that underline Snowdens observations.

0 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6tHvtFibhic

Great comment, but media narratives are a thing. The senior executives at mainstream networks set and reinforce narrative on a daily basis.