With regard to 1. Is it simply a matter of knowing the author / editor / website / blog creator's bias? I would never imagine nuance coming out of Cosmo, but I also wouldn't imagine hate speech. Also I think recognizing clickbait as clickbait is an integral part of being Internet saavy. But I also think there's a certain amount of 'know thy enemy' required. There are people who share the opinion of those listed sites in positions of authority. Extremists with power of any variety worry me, albeit these less than most.

2. I'm not sure I buy that entirely. The argument is essentially that the MIT students and 'Henry' have 0, or effectively 0 overlap, when it comes to populations of single women, right? If that were completely true there wouldn't be as much heartache among nerds. They wouldn't be exposed in such numbers to close friends telling them about some latest asshole.

More than anything I just appreciated reading a defense of guys who were emotional doormats because they thought it was how they are supposed to treat women they were interested in. There's a disturbing trend to label every misled social inept as an Elliot Rogers in the making, and I haven't seen any indication of the slowing down until very recently. And that recent concern is definitely about guns, not why people use them.

Arguing about loneliness on the Internet subjects you to worse than an echo chamber; it traps you in a feedback loop that can only cull you from the gene pool.

I mean, when you say it like that the anthrax analogy seems apt, or something. There's some part of me that wants to continue to engage with, for lack of a better phrase, dangerous ideas. Then days like today happen. I appreciate the perspective, and the hand up.