>You can spend all day wrestling and wanking each other off if you want to, chaps, but you still have to get married, have kids and go off to fight wars. You r

>You can spend all day wrestling and wanking each other off if you want to, chaps, but you still have to get married, have kids and go off to fight wars. You really don't see anything incongruent about the article's premise and his "conclusion", nor do you see that it's a preposterously philosophically-foolish position to take? He's okay with marrying a women I will not love nor have any emotional stake in. She'll just marry me, we'll live together, and she'll just be a semen vessel? Spare me the willful ignorance. >But it's not fake news. It's just shitty news Can we stop nitpicking? These publications often rely on crappy news in aggregate to push a narrative. It doesn't matter that an article here and there is seemingly rational, or has bits of truth cited by 10 year old studies with whimsical interpretations of those studies, while completely ignoring those studies were never replicated again. Those stories in aggregate begin to build up a narrative. That narrative then becomes accepted by certain people and sometimes unfortunately unquestionably so; the narrative is surrounded by a maze of complete and utter drivel. For some people, it's too much to shift through so they don't even bother to self-critique. The "maze of crap" can even have the nocuous effect of lending credence to the publishing organization. It's the same thing with anti-vaccination people, it's the same thing with flat-earthers, or people who want to claim evolution is fake. The problem becomes muddled when you get into something grey, like politics. But it's still the same pattern. >why not present your opposing view and start a reasonable debate on the subject? You are effectively asking for a dialogue "reset" Not only would that be extremely exhausting to rehash the past couple of decades of why we are where we are in regards to certain subjects, but also would basically be a waste of time. People like Milo have no interest in honest debate, or "truth" if you will. If they did, they'd write far more eloquent positions addressing the actual evidence and perspectives that exist in whatever subject is being discussed; they certainly wouldn't take willfully ignorant positions on those subjects either. They'd also conduct themselves accordingly when being filmed. Watch any of Milo's interviews on video and watch him twist himself in circles. He spends the majority of the time backpedaling on things he said rather than take some affirmative position with evidence to back it up. He and Breitbart are free to publish what they want, in whatever manner they choose. That doesn't mean they deserve people's attention or money. That doesn't mean people need to respect them. >I think Breitbart is probably more biased on average, but they both spin things pretty heavily. There is a difference here. Everyone is biased, so let's not use it as a talking point. The principle behind all this is willing to admit when you got something wrong. The principle is having the integrity to inform your readership of the wrong, and correct it. The principle is not ignoring blatantly well supported positions on certain subjects just so you can tickle your audience's emotions and fears. And to the overall censorship point: No one is calling for censorship. Private citizens and companies don't want to deal with Breitbart. Companies like facebook probably just don't have the ability nor the resources to sort through every single thing that starts trending from Breitbart, only to have it be removed because it's fake. We are talking about a publishing source that posted so many fake news stories, Facebook and Twitter decided to hell with it, we'll just get the story from elsewhere. Breitbart is in this position because of their own actions, not because there's some conspiracy theory to silence one side.