I should clarify my final statement that death in this case will most likely occur as an anomie. The eiron will become distanced from society, rejected by family and friends, have trouble attaining money to survive and likely in their state of normlessness and irrationality engage in risky behavior. There are other possible deaths but this society cools out people in a certain way.

On the other hand, irony may be defined as critical thought which rejects the tramlines of De Leuzean orthodoxy and remorselessly challenges us to reframe our ambitions and expectations in terms of a survivable compromise between social fitness and personal self-actualisation. How do you see this paradox being resolved?

Well I think it is an ironic reading of Deleuze when you take away the opposite of what is intended. Definitely the expectation is that someone who uncritically reads Deleuze will be against positive freedoms in favor of a society of enhanced negative freedoms. But the critical person who reads the criticism will not do as someone compelled by the argument is expected, but there is a paradoxical unironic irony: the critical reader of the criticism will uncritically accept the subject of the criticism. So much for being critical.

Can you explain D's definition of an "enhanced negative freedom"? I don't personally pretend to understand it.

Negative freedoms are 'freedom from' and positive freedoms are 'freedom to'. The out of control desire to be free to do anything and being allowed to do just about anything allows the positive development of the infrastructure where those freedoms play out. Free mobility, speech, association etc. The aforementioned have roads where there is set paths and traffic regulations, association has times and places and with specific people, and speech takes place within moderation or editors etc. Enhanced negative freedoms goes against the grain of modern society where people have much fewer demands of these kinds. Women want freedom from sexual interference, that's one that has worked because it gives the police powers to exert authority and purpose, but freedom from hunger, censorship, watched, etc. are not demanded. The reason for this is possibly because they are not things that can be allowed and controlled.

Women want freedom from sexual interference, that's one that has worked.... — introbert

Last I heard, the interference continues worldwide - from harrassment in the street to state-sanctioned rape and murder.

Pretty sure societies of control are mostly Western ones so far.

Sure. My query was whether freedom from sexual interference can be described as 'one that has worked'. To believe that think I would have to stop listening to anything that any woman says.

because women say they are harassed? It's not whether the control has worked. It's about how freedom is turned into something where control can be applied. In the case of women having freedom from sexual interference, they feel more free to dress provocatively. This is an intentional, but politically incorrect use of the word, but it serves its purpose here: men who are provoked into interfering with women will be controlled one way or another by self or by outside actors. It is all very free: women can feel and look sexy and men can look at them, but under control. So freedom comes with control from outside and makes you control yourself. Women's freedom from interference is guaranteed by control.