> The people and companies in this posting are fictional. Any resemblance to any real individuals or companies is coincidental. The events described herein are solely about the fictional individuals and entities, and should not be interpreted in any other context.

Honestly I found this to be the most telling line in the whole article. Why include it? As readers, we're under no obligation to pretend to be so stupid we can't see through such a transparent falsehood.

Maybe that's part of the problem with the larger conversation as well. Pro-manifesto articles usually lead with "look, here's all the places in the manifesto where the author wrote that they support diversity"—does that mean that, as readers, we need to accept those statements uncritically, ignoring everything that it includes rejecting diversity?

There are people out there who feel that if they preface their statements with "No offense, but ...", they are thereby absolved of any responsibility to not be offensive. That's not how communication does (or should) work, however.