I wouldn't use this as a metric. With social media almost any opinion whatever will surface some weirdo advocating violence even before you factor in trolls.

Not saying things are ideal in the US by any stretch of the imagination, but the mere presence of people making threats online is not itself deeply indicative of a population ready to get into it.

Have you experienced this in real life or just on social media?

Or it's a distraction from the message. If your argument is strong, I can try to change the conversation to you by finding some artifact and magnifying it through some creative interpretations - imply negative associations to X, suggest your references aren't allowed because of Y, or try get the group to attack ad hominem until it chokes out everything else.

We've collectively gotten pretty good at this in the last decade.

> Stanford University played a major role in wrecking societies worldwide through "nonviolent" white-collar crime.

This seems like an unfair burden to place on Stanford or any other institution of higher learning. We can attribute as much blame to Stanford for Messrs Brin and Page as we can to Wharton for President Trump's actions.

And what about positive actions? Forward secrecy would not be possible without Diffie-Hellman key exchange. Both Diffie and Hellman hail from Stanford. Not to mention Ralph Merkle (of Merkle trees), Alan Kay, Paul Klipsch (of the speaker) and Barbara Liskov among others. Should the school get the credit for their achievements?