hyperdunc

Pandering to offense takers encourages them to seek motives they deem aggressive.

Assuming a person's privilege based on race, gender or other immutable characteristics is imprecise and counterproductive.

By using them here it seems like you are attempting to marginalize and stigmatize those who consider the manifesto to make some decent points.

Do you have any actual arguments against the manifesto, or do you think that formulating a reasoned response would help legitimize a point of view that you find abhorrent?

Our mistake is prioritizing offense mitigation. So long as a person's primary intent isn't to offend then they should be able to say anything without being fired.

This kind of misuse of labels suggests that either you are ignorant of the subject matter or you wish to smear your ideological opponents by associating them with a group that doesn't hold their values.

There was also a story going around some years ago about the same thing happening to a species of fish, but I don't recall the details.

The point is that some of the chemicals we use have an effect on biology and we need to pay more attention to what is going on. Alex Jones might be hyperbolic, but he's touching on an important topic that many supposedly more kosher news outlets barely discuss.

At least for certain subjects. If you're doing fine arts then getting high is almost mandatory. If you're studying math or anything that uses math then getting high regularly will significantly degrade your performance.

I don't even like the man, yet I am compelled to defend him against what I see as a greater injustice.

Trying to preserve a static and separate cultural identity is pointless when knowledge, technology and our environments are changing quickly. At best the efforts are well-meaning and harmless. At worst, they present as a fetish where post-colonial guilt tries to turn the West into a zoo of distinct cultures.

Even English will ultimately be lost, although it will likely be through the mechanisms of language evolution rather than first becoming moribund.

Trying to preserving language and culture for its own sake is somewhat selfish, because it restricts individuals' experience. Better to take the good parts and incorporate them into daily life. The rest can remain in the tomes of history.

[1] https://worrydream.com

Ideally, journalists would do that research for us and present the information as objectively as possible. And we would trust them. But doing that takes a lot of time and doesn't result in a lot of clicks.

From memory here are a couple of Guardian headlines:

"Your worst nightmare: a successful Donald Trump Presidency"

"Have we reached peak beard?"

And here's a couple they're serving up right now:

"'Soon you'll be able to afford a BBC man' / Emily Maitlis mocks pay gap at conference"

"'Bigger than yours' / Randy Newman writes song about Donald Trump's penis"

"Peter Dutton's new mega department will streamline dog whistling and fear whipping"

Not exactly indicative of unbiased, quality journalism. But never mind, because how much do cherry picked headlines really tell us?

Also, don't you think that suggesting Breitbart is worse than the Guardian might point to your own bias?

The Guardian is designed to look less like a tabloid, which gives the appearance of it being more honest - but is it really a less biased source of news? It's very hard to judge such things.

I've been reading the Guardian for a long time and I've noticed it's been embracing some of the more unsavory elements of the left in recent years. Someone else might contend those elements are warranted.

The differences in news reporting today seems to come down to the values we prioritize and the narratives that push them.

The real problem is diverging narratives and very little constructive communication between. Both sides have very valid concerns that aren't understood by the other.