JubilantJaguar

Exactly. I'd say this is currently the best everyday example of the phenomenon.

IMO you're doing it the right way.

If there's a single indicator to pay attention to, it's the source of funding. Where does the media outlet get its money from?

Next is professional ethics: does it employ real journalists? Journalism is like medicine, it's a profession with a code of conduct. In this case, a commitment to factual accuracy, a good-faith search for the truth, fairness in choices about what to cover, transparency about sources, etc.

And if you feel the journalists are doing a bad job, then go back to point 1 and ask: Who is paying them? Are you? The reason for today's crisis in journalism is not that journalists are lazy or evil, it's that the internet cratered their business model. More of us need to step up and pay. It's that simple.

I have a couple of paid subscriptions. If that's the cost of living in a properly informed society, it's a great deal.

OK. Not sure how far that recipe gets us in practice, but it's a respectable argument.

You’re not my audience,

That's a good point and I work to this principle myself. So my observation was pretty redundant, yes.

I already know you’re anchored in your convictions

To the extent you know anything about me, I also "know" that your own convictions are just as unmovable.

Looked at another way, it's a good thing to have convictions.

Not reasonable because you’re making a broad generalization

Generalizations are broad by nature, that does not mean they have no value.

But in reality the majority of people who oppose immigration also oppose LGBT+ and freedom of religion so it’s unlikely they’ll use this argument.

Can't speak for the USA but that is absolutely not the case in Europe.

Otherwise you make some decent points. In any case, IMO discussions like this would benefit if we accepted from the outset that nobody is going to be convincing others to change their opinions. The best that can be hoped for is to understand the opposing side better. That would be an achievement in itself.

These sources don't prove anything. This is about values. If you want to convince people who are not already on your side then you need to begin there.

That's a specific case that doesn't falsify my claim that most people in this discussion, here, are inflating away the meaning of the word Nazi so that it equates to, roughly, "somebody I don't like who is to the right of me politically".

This precise argument can also be made to justify a tightening on immigration from countries where religious intolerance is the cultural norm, on the grounds that "if you allow [them] to spread their ideology eventually there will be enough [of them] to be able to take the power by force, and when they do they’ll setback all of the tolerance that was advanced". Reasonable?

Amusing. This conundrum, exactly as described, has also been bothering me, on and off, for years. Having tried a bunch of solutions, I have recently settled on one that I'm quite pleased with.

A bumbag. AKA waist pack. (AKA another name which sounds both comical and vulgar to British ears.)

You're not gonna look cool but it works.

battle between Ubuntu and Fedora with their derivative

Agreed in general. Except that Ubuntu is itself a derivative, of Debian. Technically it's Debian that's the peer of Fedora.

Indeed. The moral purity issue has always been the Achilles heel of progressive politics. It makes compromise hard and it drives heretics - i.e. the people whose votes you need - crazy.