1. My point on nihilism is that even the viewpoint that all is pointless does not preclude us from attempting to change things (however devoid of meaning it is). But it is a poor usage; positively appealing to existentialism and the ability to create meaning would probably have been better. My allusion to postmodernism is similar: if truth is a collective construct, being able to reject it in favor of something more desirable is still important (even though the substitute is itself a construct).

2. I suppose we just fundamentally disagree about the degree to which the clash of worldviews is solely emotional, or that its emotional content makes it less valid or important. I don't think neutrality is an ideal to be pursued in all things either. Often, all sides arguments are NOT equal. To me, the ideals are to be informed and be just. Sadly, I admit that I do not have a wholly satisfactory definition of justice. I waver between a form of utilitarianism and harm prevention which do not always fit well together.

3. Judging by the mixed consensus of this thread, I do not think we have an effective front of collective social action against the topic behavior.