The remark on the formatting was not meant as a cheap shot or to denigrate the content in any way. At least for me bold/colored text interspersed in a paragraph makes it significantly harder to read and to focus on the flow of the sentences and their nuances. You always have some bold attention! screaming word in your immediate peripheral vision. If it's a short comment making a single point that is acceptable, but in a multiparagraphed comment it gets tedious.

So I'm happy to lead our arguments where noone has gone before, just not to lead them there boldly ...

It's been some time since I checked the standard style manuals: is there really a stated style for emphasis in comments on the internet?

No. There are, however, community norms in this particular corner of the internet.

As to Goebells: that specific example really needed to be in there, since he made clear that he admired Bernays (and the American eugenics movement). Born-against-Christians are the handiest example of indoctrination.

Still, it is generally a good idea to avoid politicized examples, especially here.

I don't know what "applause lights" are: doubtless some egregious thing that is so important that it merited a new jargonistic term for the [meta]cognoscenti to use to beat us 'mundanes'.

Was that really necessary? Applause Lights.

LBNL: if you don't think that there is a clique here who is, quite specifically, "march[ing] [their] little soldier arguments", I think you have not been paying attention. It's as bad as coming across a coven of Randians, and almost as correct-line as the Freepers (the trolling of Freepers is one of life's little joys).

The sort of people who say "Your entire theory of life and morals is incomplete and would bee useless for programming an AI" in response to a 21-word phrase at the end of a comment which did not purport to be exhaustive or complete, and was never put forward as a candidate for coding an AI.

Also the sort of people who say "What you said doesn't make sense to me, so you must be wrong and not know what you're talking about" while revealing gaping holes in their understanding of early-undergraduate material that is absolutely central to the issue at hand.

I've taught people like that - usually at first year level: people who throw about words like "utilitarian" and "consequentialist", while steadfastly ignoring the long-term consequences of the system they are advocating (or implicitly supporting) and attacking anybody they view as ideologically impure. It's hilarious.

Firstly, Arguments As Soldiers.

Secondly, please provide specific examples if you have some criticism, don't just sort people into a reference class containing idiots.