Ah, but you’re forgetting that this is the age of the internet, when discussing potential solutions to a problem (or root causes of that problem so that real solutions can be found) is basically equivalent to providing justification for that problem.
We’re just supposed to paper over everything to make it presentable to an audience, even if beneath the surface everything is still a wreck. Superficial, temporary solutions are preferable to lasting solutions that address the problems at their roots.
Something about toxic positivity, and confusing descriptivism with prescriptivism.
“Does” ≠ “Should” (strawmen hate this one little trick!)
I read their comment in a way ‘that stands in the way of eradicating misogyny’ not in a way ‘it makes misogyny allowed’
Thank you, you reasonable person
You’re in the right here. Some people just lack reading comprehension.
Ah, but you’re forgetting that this is the age of the internet, when discussing potential solutions to a problem (or root causes of that problem so that real solutions can be found) is basically equivalent to providing justification for that problem.
We’re just supposed to paper over everything to make it presentable to an audience, even if beneath the surface everything is still a wreck. Superficial, temporary solutions are preferable to lasting solutions that address the problems at their roots.
Something about toxic positivity, and confusing descriptivism with prescriptivism.
“Does” ≠ “Should” (strawmen hate this one little trick!)