The only reason this term exists and why people use it in a derogatory way, or as something to avoid, is to simply avoid taking responsibility for their own media consumption. It makes people feel guilty when (figurative ZOGbot) you, and I both know something is wrong with the media, but you feel too uncomfortable about going out of your way to discuss and act on the TRUTH^TM and simply exit from the institutions of international finance. The cosmopolitan cattle dismisses the freer alternative because the TV handed you the keys to, because the updoot farm that sucks the tax piggy dry is comfortable, and yet the multiculti citizen "doesn't have X" to do it (the time, the will, the balls, etc). That wouldn't bother me, personally, particularly, but you have to project throwing around the idea that it's "dangerous" for others to do so. I guess, in a way, that is correct insofar as collecting your own rainwater without government intervention is "dangerous": not really to you, as you would pretend, but to the metainstitution the ZOGbot pretends to hate. I'm probably preaching to the choir on this, but I'm not sure. People can apply the same thing to "cults" and the same set of arguments would generally apply. The obvious difference is that the likelyhood of any of you touching me in the future is far more slim. Any thoughts?