What??? You just said
" you cannot avoid this implication without an explicit declaration that you're not making it, e.g., "But this is not, apparently, how MediaVsReality is using the word.""
That IS how he is using the word. And no, I didn't just make that up, let me quote you again.
" Or you can take something else, but at least do so in a principled way and at least make sure you and the person you're criticizing have a somewhat similar definition.
Otherwise you're just talking past the person you're claiming you want to address, and on purpose."
" Otherwise you're just talking past the person you're claiming you want to address" -- implying that somehow this mere mention somehow negates all of the evidence that supports it afterwards. Do you understand how creative writing works??? First, you present a point, and then after you go through multiple paragraphs outlined to demonstrate the theme of the article. That is how basic writing works, and that is how this article is structured.
You are nitpicking my introduction in the most asinine way possible. YES, I do believe that MediaVsReality holds prejudice against minority populations. That is 100-percent illustrated by the way he addresses minority populations and their representation and civil rights progression inside of this article as " inconveniences to the average person" and a reason for leaving the left.
You're bias, is your problem. You ARE nitpicking my article because it is entirely sound and you have no real counters -- because none of what you have said here was a counter to my point, it was just a completely invalid critique of my use of a word. That is because you want some way to invalidate my article because you cannot do it with facts.
"Edit: I leave this comment here for historical record, but note that Emma in this chain has clarified that she does take MediaVSReality to mean that caring about women and minorities is a bad thing, and therefore my primary criticism (that this is off-topic and ill-researched innuendo designed only to discredit MediaVSReality) is wrong. In fact, it's not innuendo at all, but her thesis that he's opposed to caring about women and minorities."
The thesis of the article is in fact that the sole reason that this person left the left is because they were tired of hearing about the very real issues that minority populations face on a daily basis, and I think that is asinine. I have no idea how this could possibly go over one's head.
My counter to this is that the issues are
1. Obviously real
2. Being perpetuated by conservatives
3. Have historical context that is important to consider before writing things off as " woke."
When I said " I agree, the other issues were important" -- this did not mean I was suddenly against paying attention to the disparities between minority populations and other populations? What could possibly make you assume that? My point is people like you doing what IS in fact POSTURING are actively impeding these things from even being discussed in the first place. You might have noticed that this article is a response. You might have also noticed that the majority of my articles are responses to narratives or ideas that are completely absurd. Again, as I said in the article -- the issues, though I might prefer to make significant moves in the U.S. economy, are base-line issues. We cannot create an egalitarian socialist economy if a large percentage of the population doesn't think this or that minority group should be able to be in the public eye. You, however, are posturing to the people that are opposed to being anti-hate. I happen to think it isn't very negative to be anti-hate.
For instance, in the article I responded to MediaVsReality cited that " all the left cares about now is transgender people," but the left has been about social equity for some time now. In my article, I detail how there has been an insane rise in anti-transgender propaganda and 2020 was the highest rate of violence ever recorded against transgender people. So obviously, it is an issue. We don't have civil rights, as I also pointed out in the article.
Your little " objection" just makes no sense. It isn't an objection to anything factual I said inside of the article, in which the theme is quite clearly defined and I tow the line of providing " woke" reasoning to " anti-woke" arguments the entire article. So honestly dude, I have no idea what you are talking about.
And yes, clearly this person does have problems with how they treat minorities. They are literally getting mad because there is a shoe for gay people. How could that possibly be framed as anything but mad at the existence of gay people??? Because otherwise he is just mad at the existence of advertising and marketing campaigns. Which yes, I am too, but this is obviously not a reason for leaving the left and the reason they left the left.
