That you assumed one of two equally appropriate interpretations of this (admittedly awkward) phrasing and jumped to conclusions is even more revealing.
You're right! I didn't read his response to my comment very carefully; I missed the italicization, and thus his point. And: yep, that's pretty revealing about me, too.
My point (which I stated in the parent twice) was that people regularly fall victim to confirmation bias and choose the facts that support their own beliefs. I think I was fairly objective in pointing out that there are opposing viewpoints and people tend to gravitate towards places (blogs, communities, sub-communities, news agencies) that reflect their own views.
> there are entire news agencies corrupted by feminism is revealing
I don't want to debate whether something like xojane is "feminist" or a "blog" or a "news agency" or both. My point was that people look to confirm their own viewpoint, which it seems you are doing here rather than see the point I stated several times. Again, it was that there are opposing sources in media and people gravitate towards views and media that confirm their internal bias.
edit: I can no longer edit the parent post but if it is helpful to others reading it, substitute "news agencies" for "articles concerned with feminist/women's issues"
