Nobody made any claim it wasn't educational, just that they took issue with the terminology for who it targets. That wasn't a non-sequitur. You ignoring that

Nobody made any claim it wasn't educational, just that they took issue with the terminology for who it targets. That wasn't a non-sequitur. You ignoring that aspect entirely and focusing on it being about its educational aspects. That's the non-sequitur. As to the terminology in question, there is a time an place for semantics, and to a greater or lesser degree, it's always. Sometimes you can get away with being very loose, sometimes you should be more specific. In dealing with a community which identifies with a specific aspect of a term, ignoring that identification or contradicting it is at best tone deaf, and at worst needlessly confrontational. Semantics improve communication by signalling a common agreement on the meaning or terms in a conversation. In that respect, they improve conversation. Just because you place little value on something (even if in a specific situation) does not mean it actually has little value, or that others do not benefit from its presence. To be clear, I didn't care about your first comment one way or another. I didn't think it added much, but it wasn't worth me downvoting. Your followup which was at best confusing but possibly entirely unrelated to the point it was responding to (thus the non-sequitur designation) that then went on to denigrate the entire community of this site to suggest in an off-hand way that we are all falling for propaganda was definitely not advancing the conversation usefully. If you had presented it in a more coherent and supported manner, as you attempted in your reply to me, I would have considered it a useful and welcome addition to the conversation, even if the subject matter was to call me out as subject to the whims of propaganda presented here (a topic related somewhat to ones I touch on often here, such as contextual interpretation and state of mind). I find this conversation interesting and worth participating in and contributes something, even if not on the original topic entirely, I just didn't think your original rebuttal remotely met that bar.