While there is majority public support for banning teen social media use in the U.S., regulation is blocked by 'whataboutism'—a lobbying tactic of raising endless hypothetical objections (e.g., VPNs, privacy) to create legislative paralysis and prevent any action from being taken.

Claiming you will only 'turn down the temperature' after your opponents do is not a strategy for de-escalation; it is a justification for retaliation. This 'counter-punching' approach ensures conflict continues. A genuine desire to reduce societal tension requires leading by example, not waiting for the other side to act first.

History’s most shocking atrocities are defined less by their authoritarian leaders and more by the 'giant blob of enablers' who facilitate them. The current political climate demonstrates this, where professionals and politicians abdicate their expertise and principles to avoid conflict, becoming complicit in the process and allowing destructive ideologies to gain power.

Rather than taking a "holier than thou" stance and refusing to engage with governments that have committed atrocities, it is more effective to build bridges. Cooperation invites them into the 21st century and aligns them with your values, whereas isolationism is counterproductive.

When a politician suddenly makes a previously ignored issue intensely important, they are likely employing misdirection. The goal is to control the news cycle and public attention, either to distract from a more significant action happening elsewhere or to advance a hidden agenda unrelated to the stated crisis.

Holding out for morally perfect leaders is naive and paralyzing. The reality of geopolitics is a "knife fight" where leaders inevitably make decisions that result in death. Progress requires working with these flawed individuals rather than disengaging over past actions.

Under the theory of emotivism, many heated moral debates are not about conflicting fundamental values but rather disagreements over facts. For instance, in a gun control debate, both sides may share the value of 'boo innocent people dying' but disagree on the factual question of which policies will best achieve that outcome.

Grisham's most pragmatic argument against the death penalty isn't moral but systemic: Texas has exonerated 18 people from death row. He argues that even if one supports the penalty in principle, one cannot support a system proven to make catastrophic errors. This "flawed system" framework is a powerful way to debate high-risk policies.

An ideologue, even an anarchist advocating against the state, may support a massive state action if it serves a higher strategic purpose—in this case, disrupting a system they oppose. The perceived hypocrisy is dismissed as irrelevant when compared to the desired outcome, framing it as a solution, not a preferred method of governance.