Television, in addition to carrying on the benefit of radio, shows students the world rather than simply referring to points on a map. Different cultures and environments can be described in full color with fluid video, rather than hoping the student understands a short text description that too often seems absurd due to its foreign context.
whether society is unfair to approximately 50% if its members
You wouldn't happen to be talking about women when you say "approximately 50% if its members", would you? Careful, someone might take that the wrong way.
Gay people shouldn't need to hide the guy bare-ass in chaps and a cowboy hat, and nothing else, to be respected and have equality before the law. Feminists shouldn't have to hide the bra-burners to have the same rights and opportunities as men.
"Shouldn't have to" is a pretty non-informative statement. Children shouldn't have to die of malaria, but they do. I was telling you what approach I think has the largest chance of neutralizing the venomous effect of radical feminism/Islam/atheism/etc. It's a matter of tone, really. There's not a huge difference between what is meant when one says "feminism isn't about hating men" vs. "I am a feminist, but I don't hate men and the things I fight for are good for both genders", but one of them leads down a rabbit hole of accusations of "no true scotsman" and links to tumblr pages, while the other one has a slightly better chance of getting at least one person to think "hey, maybe I shouldn't be afraid of feminists?" Your claim that it's all men's fault that the term feminism has been poisoned isn't helping, either.
I have, unfortunately, seen enough Internet arguments to know how those things go. Fear and mistrust are too powerful. A single story about someone getting fired over saying "dongle" is worth a thousand people like you arguing what feminism "actually" is and who it's good for. Being a little more proactive about counteracting that effect can't hurt.
This is the problem right here: the term feminist has been poisoned intentionally. Its similar to the right-wing hit job on 'liberal'; the only way to defeat an idea that most people already accept is to reframe and demonize that idea as something objectionable.
I don't care enough to express an opinion on the rest of your post and the debate you're in, but this part strikes me as very false. A conspiracy theory is completely unnecessary to explain the "poisoning" of the term feminism. It's entirely believable that, as radical elements of feminism naturally arose (and they did arise naturally; there's no way in hell that's a false flag operation), both non-feminists and those with actively anti-feminist inclinations lumped those radical elements with the less extreme versions of feminism. That's a story as old as time, same has happened with Islam, atheism, race relations, LGBT issues, etc. People are really bad at ignoring threatening extremes. It's a natural impulse, no deliberate poisoning necessary. As far as I know, the only viable means of fighting this trend is for the more moderate (but still similarly aligned) elements to actively, loudly disavow the radicalization of their views. Defensiveness won't get you anywhere, it'll just legitimize the suspicion surrounding the issue further.
And I wasn't ridiculing anti-anti-trans sentiment, I was ridiculing the fact that these sort of discussions so often center around a specific set of attributes (LGBTQQIAAP+) that do not reflect the absolute (i.e. non-relative) prevalence of abuse which centers on them. OP's assertion was that anyone who is "different from a straight, cis, white man" is attacked. Well, Gabe Newell is all of those things, but how much bullshit do you suppose he's had to deal with because he's obese? "Straight cis white man" has just become a moniker for "evil" in certain circles, which is why I'm sure OP didn't even give any thought as to how informative/useful/relevant each modifier was to the discussion.
Sounds like someone needs to invent the InTeXnet
People use facebook with the expectation that they are seeing a (reasonably) objective representation of what their friends are trying to express or convey. Facebook is the equivalent of the telephone in a telephone call.
That claim would make sense if people commonly held telephone conversations with hundreds of people simultaneously who say things continuously all day long. There are plenty of forums on the Internet that display information based on simple rules like "most recent post at the top". But as long as you, your family, and just about everyone else in the country are using Facebook instead of one of those forums, then the only thing you're complaining about regarding this story is that they, for once, decided to share the results of one of what has to be hundreds or thousands of similar experiments they've already performed to come up with the IR algorithms they have running now.
"Everyone else is doing it" is a juvenile argument that little kids make to justify behaviors that they shouldn't be engaging in.
Ugh, didn't you disgust yourself while typing that out? There was a lot more to OP's argument than that, as you very well know. And that's on top of the Olympian leap it must have taken to claim that a private company tweaking the information filtering algorithms for their entirely optional leisure service can constitute a violation of personal sovereignty, which is a concept more commonly reserved for discussions on issues like indentured servitude...