My comments are simple, direct. I inject nothing and ask questions about statements. If this is offensive, it is inferred without being implied.

Let's address your assertions and questions one-by-one without all the fluff.

1. A subjectively-observed attitude indicates lack of education.

2. What does time vampire mean.

3. You acknowledge an aggressive tone and suggest the next paragraph will contain a shift.

4. You provide a contextual quote.

My responses.

1. Disregard, I draw no connection between attitude and education so choose not to engage, defend, or otherwise.

2. I'll admit, this is close to a joke/slang term. Colloquially, time vampire is someone who takes your time as a hobby. Related to "bullshit asymmetry" aka, the amount of effort required to debunk bullshit is always greater than the initial bullshit. Giving the bullshitter infinite ammo to destroy the time of a good faith responder. A vampire takes blood, a time vampire would take time. I am sure you can draw the connection from the above info.

3. No response required. Clear.

4. This is where the assumptions go wrong, I do not support neoliberalism. I support clarity of discussion. I responded because I found the initial comment to be misleading, unclear, and poorly framed. On liberalism I have no stance due to lack of education on this topic. Your quote is interesting, I'll have to read more on this.