My cynicism was hard earned. I grew up with what is sometimes called Whig History, the notion that the world is a history of gradual improvement. Not just of technology, but of humanity itself, towards more freedom and compassion.<p>I believed I had a role to play in the next step. I was both smart and empathetic. I thought I could help establish middle grounds, where people found ways to live together despite disagreements. We did have to agree on anything except the need for everyone to live, and otherwise ignore each other.<p>What I have seen in that time is a rise in deliberate hatefulness, paired with a deliberate anti-intellectualism. I watched in bafflement as things I considered obvious, like basic science and basic civility, became points of argument. It all seemed designed to defeat specifically my approach.<p>TFA encourages me to choose optimism anyway. I don't know that I can. It feels a bit like accepting Pascal's Wager, which is itself cynical. Whig History fails for being too optimistic, and how can more optimism succeed any better?<p>It was painful to admit that the world was going to devote itself so hard to hate. It seemed impossible for so many to be fundamentally bad people. I avoided it as long as I could, but eventually I couldn't continue ignoring the evidence.<p>I believe at this point the best I can hope for is to make a few marginal, local improvements while the world as a whole gives in to hatred and chosen ignorance.