Thanks for the link, I'll read it this evening. I appreciate the correction of primary, I agree it's an unnecessary broad characterization. I also understand y

Thanks for the link, I'll read it this evening. I appreciate the correction of primary, I agree it's an unnecessary broad characterization. I also understand your concern with the "distancing" you're referring to, however: I think there's a subtle line between being willing to engage with someone the way you speak of and tolerating behavior that is socially toxic. If there's something I feel like has been learned over the last 30 years, it's that some portion of the population (the term "privileged" is often used here) are enabled by society to be deaf in their actions and the impacts of those actions on others. Whether the "privilege" causing their deafness be power that is rooted in money, race, or simply being member of a majority in some sense... the impact is the same. They need to be hit over the head with the mirror of what they are creating and, yes, sometimes that action is a bit emotionally violent. Or, in your language, sometimes that requires creating a characterization/image of their actions which can sometimes look similar to what you are calling distancing. I think the unfortunate simple difference between being unnecessarily divisive in your commentary (which I think is a summary of what you're asserting I've done) and calling people out for their bad behavior... is simply whether your characterization of their behavior is accurate or not. I hope I'm being fair and accurate and I think you've done a good job in pointing out the ways I was not.