Oh, I should have worded that more carefully. Meant more along the lines of my last sentence(quote). The serious discussion about religion and its critics is of course not about who is the more annoying person, but an important debate on how society should behave and work. We have achieved progress through science,…

Not familiar with that term, but I certainly hope they are criticizing the things that need to be adressed. Because let's be honest here, there are alot of things they should accept being criticized about, without being offended. It's not a sensitive subject.

Wow, I've never heard of that being the endgame for atheists. Is that a real thing?
Fundamentalists of all kinds, christians and muslims alike, should expect and accept to be criticized. It's not offensive just because it's religion under scrutiny. That's not how a civil debate works.

"an equally annoying self-righteous atheist making unicorn analogies"

Now we're talking. That's the first mention of Faster Pussycat I've seen on this site. Their second album is also awesome. You probably know of them already, but I can recommend L.A Gun's first album too(just in case).

Just out of curiosity, did your predictions come true? Instead I think you wanted to argue with Reddit users, anti-feminist and neo-conservatives because consensus on the internet is, well…kinda boring to be honest.

I can see your point, but as journalists it's almost a given that they should take the debate….over and over again. It's probably in their job description. Shutting down the debate is worse imho.
I admire those who have the tenacity to take the debate all the time, lord knows I don't.

This is how the internet works these days. You gotta learn how to shoehorn in an accusation of misogyny somehow. In some areas of the internet it's basically a competition at this point. From my pov it doesn't seem grounded in honest beliefs. Very very soon we're gonna run out of high horses to climb. We're gonna…

I can sympathize with that, it's understandable, but that's not entirely what I'm reaching for here as an endgame.
It's the 99% that's bothering me. Many of them just like arguing for arguings sake and the pre-approved opinions are getting smaller and smaller in numbers. I'm pretty sure some of the commenters coming…

I should've been clearer, that I didn't mean you specifically, just in general. Sorry about that.

Don't be overwhelmed by 1%(approx) of the comments. That' s a little bit obsessive.

Well, you got a good point(as always I might add), but I see the same pattern all the time.

If by positive you mean that the majority of the first 350 comments arguing what a horrible commentsection this could turn into.

I read through all of the comments when the postcount was about 350. There was precisely one commenter(mammypyjama) that seemed controversial(comment deleted) at that time.
Rest of the comments more or less discussed what a horrible comment section this is. Obviously the trolls usually come later in the comment cycle,…

That's how it always is with that guy.
If something good happens, he wants the credit.
If something terrible happens, "he works in mysterious ways".
Clever dude, really.

Or inner-city Paris 2015?
Luke(to Manny): "What would you have done, made him the subject of a satirical cartoon?"
Hmmm….topical by mistake.

I know you're supposed to be the voice of reason and so on, but I usually listen to the MattssonHelin podcast. They're the editors/publishers of Swedens largest newspapers. They covered what you said the first 10 seconds of the first episode. But thanks for playing.

No, he doesn't.
SHUT YOUR FESTERING GOB, YOU TIT! YOUR TYPE MAKES ME PUKE! YOU VACUOUS TOFFEE-NOSED MALODOROUS PERVERT!!!

You're here to argue.

We're not angry.