Okay, trying engaging intellectually with the reports rather than just reacting to someone’s one sentence summary of thousands of words. It’s kind of hard to see any definition of “identity politics” which includes the reports but not your emotional reaction to accurate words.

> Okay, trying engaging intellectually with the reports rather than just reacting to someone’s one sentence summary of thousands of words

I wasn't reacting to a summary, I was reacting to an independent premise. The sentence I reacted to, at least the way I read it, was broad to the point of being more of an axiom with which the commenter interpreted the post. As I see it, disagreeing with an axiom is an intellectual engagement. Feel free to counter my disagreement.

> It’s kind of hard to see any definition of “identity politics” which includes the reports but not your emotional reaction to accurate words.

Not entirely sure what you're saying here, but none of what I said was emotional. Simply pointing out that pattern matching is a viable way of filtering other people's thoughts and ideas. If someone makes wild claim, it should change the way you view other claims which may have seemed more rational in their absence. Not really an emotional statement in my mind, but again, feel free to point out which part of this you disagree with and I'd be happy to engage.

As it stands now you aren't really responding to anything I've said, but rather disagreeing that what I'm responding to warrants responding, which is rather tangential.