I think that part of the essay might have been about how addressing him as Mr. Firstname is actually more formal than Mr. Lastname, even though Firstname is not his family name

Could it be Turkish? Just stumbled on this section on the Wikipedia article on mononyms

Surnames were introduced in Turkey only after World War I, by the country’s first president, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, as part of his Westernization and modernization programs. Common people can be addressed semi-formally by their given name plus the title Bey or Hanım (without surname), whereas politicians are often known by surname only (Ecevit, Demirel).

To add; Having indigenous or African ancestry doesn’t automatically protect you from adopting white supremacist beliefs

The BLM stuff moved a lot of minorities (Asians and others) away from the left

Can you expand on this? I haven’t stumbled upon this before

Racism is still free speech which sucks but the alternative is high censorship and fear

This is incorrect, and only serves those who target marginalized groups.

I wanna make it very clear that the conclusion that restriction of hate speech is a slippery slope for freedom of speech is not a given or universally held position

You can absolutely introduce laws prohibiting hate speech without introducing high censorship or fear. Many countries have laws prohibiting hate speech, including most European countries and a majority of, what Wikipedia calls, developed democracies.

Even countries that don’t have limits for hate inducing speech towards marginalized groups, with reference to the importance of freedom of speech, rarely have complete freedom of speech.

As an example, the US limits to freedom of speech include “fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising.”

The claim that intolerance to intolerance is dangerous, only serves the spread of intolerance.

The paradox of tolerance states that if a society’s practice of tolerance is inclusive of the intolerant, intolerance will ultimately dominate, eliminating the tolerant and the practice of tolerance with them.

Rosenfeld contrasts the approach to hate speech between Western European democracies and the United States, pointing out that among Western European nations, extremely intolerant or fringe political materials (e.g. Holocaust denial) are characterized as inherently socially disruptive, and are subject to legal constraints on their circulation as such,[13] while the US has ruled that such materials are protected by the principle of freedom of speech and cannot be restricted, except when endorsements of violence or other illegal activities are made explicit.

source

This planet is just one part of it and in order for the universe to have a healthy gut we would have to terra form the planets and make healthy worlds.

…

I want to question the assumption that an increase of Earth-like planets would be better than the current state of the universe.

The idea that the current state of the universe is unhealthy, and needs us to save it by increasing homogeneity by altering other planets to look more like ours…

I’m just gonna say it.

It’s eerily reminiscent of the colonizers’ mindset of “saving the world by making it more like us”

It comes from the assumption that others’ current state of being is inferior to ours, and need to be fixed, by us assimilating then into our, superior, state of being. It comes from an assumption that there exists inferior and superior states at all, and that superior states of being should be strived towards. Rather than assuming that diversity is better than homogeneity, and different states of being are neither inferior or superior, they simply are.

I question the idea that us changing the universe to resemble us, would be superior to the current state of the universe