Ahh. I wasn't sure what made this a bizarro #lolbrooks until you pointed out the mundanity of simply engaging those with differing viewpoints. It's sad that it's considered brave, but it's true. I'd ask your thoughts on what one of the commenters on Murphy's site said in response to this piece: I'd nominate Charles Murray as such a person. In The Bell Curve, he laid out a theory of how the world works: That cognitive skills increasingly determine whether a person can find a remunerative career, and that the potential to develop such skills varies widely at birth, consigning those without such gifts to become part of a permanent underclass. As a caring solution, he recommended a universal basic income. Given what's happened to him since, it's hard to argue that he didn't genuinely risk himself on solving the problem.> In my view, this tradeoff between being correct about how the world works and caring for each other enough that we can cooperatively change it in the direction of peace and abundance for all—this is perhaps the most vexing and urgent puzzle for a genuine revolutionary left today. Yet remarkably I am not aware of a single person genuinely risking themselves on solving it...