"so much more malleable"

M.M., why the "so much"? and why "more"? i have had interchanges with sec-hums who have proved hopelessly naive and unaware of their own assumptions, kind of what i've berated hs' & others about re modsec generally, about their lack of awareness of its functioning often as religious surrogate, with sometimes even worse and more dangerous failings

why not just point to different possibly evil inclinations of different groups?

it is better to generalize about human propensities altogether, and include modsec/sech-hum/libeff/rel-trad... as data all, not single out one as "so much more", as if others aren't so much more something in their own way, kind of treating it anthropologically maybe, and find complementary foibles

the 'scientism' posture of a skeptic, eg, more readily allied to sec-hum/modsec, is demonstrably every bit as dangerous as an authoritarian religionist