> They use emotionally charged language and minorities as a shield against criticism. Not only against criticism, but against actual understanding. See: the u

> They use emotionally charged language and minorities as a shield against criticism. Not only against criticism, but against actual understanding. See: the usage of recently coined, or at least re-popularized words ("minoritized", "gaslighting") that are weighty with implication, and light on concrete claims or accusations. > Which rights are they missing exactly? Forcing this explanation would move the debate into an area they worry they can't win, so they couch their complaints in -isms and -ations, and go no further. Like most people, I know that racism, sexism and inequality exist. But they are not magic words that absolve you of actually making an argument. It's infuriating, to be frank. The issues are too important not to have a serious, sober debate about how to address them. We just can't seem to get there.