It seems like your argument relies more on personal attacks and mischaracterizations than on addressing the actual topic. Let's break down the logical fallacies you're using here:

Ad Hominem (Personal Attacks): The majority of your reply is focused on attacking my character rather than my ideas. Phrases like "jaw-agape complacent pacifists," "kumbaya feminine disney outlook," and insults about my wife or "stupid goats" are all attempts to dismiss my argument by insulting me personally.

Straw Man: You created a ridiculous quote—"im an ahistorical mcmerican consumer..."—and attributed it to me. I never said that. You're not arguing against my actual position; you're attacking a distorted, easy-to-defeat caricature that you invented.

Hasty Generalization: You've leaped from a disagreement on this one topic to the conclusion that "you have destroyed everything else that made life tolerable." That's a massive, unsupported generalization.

False Dilemma: You frame the situation as if there are only two options: my supposed "obliviously sunny" worldview or your "nightmare" reality. This ignores the possibility of any nuanced or complex perspective in between.

If you'd like to discuss the actual issues—like node decentralization and data bloat—I'm happy to do that. But I'm not interested in engaging with personal insults and logical fallacies.