You are suggesting that headlines are vetted so that they can't possibly be offensive in any possible interpretation of them? To everyone? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm asking for a clarification. As this seems to be a natural conclusion to draw from what you said.

If not, I would again point out that I am saying it is not reasonable for you to take this conclusion from this article and that you are most likely only taking this meaning from the headline because of some form of bias.

This really does seem to be veering away from my original point. I'm sorry to say this, but given your other comments and mis-classification of black people as criminals, in your original response, and your attempt to de-legitimise this article by slipping in suggestions that it's misleading and full of hyperbole, after focusing your points on the headline, I don't believe that your motives are so noble and you're just seeking to improve discussion. I could be wrong on that and I'm not saying that takes any weight from any points you have made, I just don't believe your motives are as pure or your views as impartial as you claim.

Onto a point which I agree with you on, yes, if people are polite to each other it generally encourages better discourse. There has actually been scientific research done that suggests that in order to change people's minds you need to make them feel good about themselves. So yes, fair point on the last "hey asshole" comment. Really what we're talking about though is your interpretation against my interpretation of the headline, I didn't take it that way, you did. You are now suggesting that conservative people would take it in the way that you did and be offended and that in order to start a reasonable dialogue with these people (and "go high") people from opposing political viewpoints should try to think from their perspective and avoid offending them. The thing is, it's not an unfair point but you've got to see it's pretty similar to the "safe space" argument that's been going on at universities. If one responded with "well they are getting unreasonably offended at things that aren't really offensive. Either way offense is subjective and you can't accommodate everyone, well then I'd point that right back at you. I'm not saying that makes you wrong, it's just a parallel I think is important to highlight. Especially as I'd posit that, in general, white people are more prone to being sensitive to discrimination for their skin colour than other groups, as it's something they rarely experience. If this is true and if we are to take your argument we are going to end up being far more sensitive towards white people than other groups, as I'd argue we already are with regards to things like headlines. I say this as a white man, not that it should matter. Though I'm not implying you think it does.

Now, a separate question can be established: "Is 'right' for people who oppose trump to 'take the moral high ground'?" [an addendum: 1) I am not saying that this article isn't already on 'the moral highground,']

That is something we can discuss if you like. Anyway, I've got to sleep now. Hope you have a good night.