It's interesting that you start with a false characterization of the comment you're replying to and the original post as well. It's clear that the objection is not to inclusion of marginalized voices but the intolerance for other voices.
It's interesting that you start with a false characterization of the comment you're replying to and the original post as well. It's clear that the objection is not to inclusion of marginalized voices but the intolerance for other voices.
Those "marginalized voices" have totalitarian ambitions, and zero interest in including other perspectives.
It appears that you have never lived in an area where those "marginalized voices" have gained control over institutions of power. I have. I still do. B Smith's characterization is exactly correct.
It's interesting that you start with a false characterization of the comment you're replying to and the original post as well. It's clear that the objection is not to inclusion of marginalized voices but the intolerance for other voices.
So why are you mischaracterizing?
Those "marginalized voices" have totalitarian ambitions, and zero interest in including other perspectives.
It appears that you have never lived in an area where those "marginalized voices" have gained control over institutions of power. I have. I still do. B Smith's characterization is exactly correct.