[lawnchair_larry]

You can’t do that. You have to judge based on what was written, not what you’ve convinced yourself was an ulterior motive and dismissing his actual words as a facade. This behavior is so perplexing.

It is not what he was saying. Why do so many people absolutely insist on misinterpreting it to the point of willful distortion?

[ergothus]

You are literally describing critical thinking. To assume no one would lie, mislead, or even just be blind to their own biases is to be part of the problem.

How did I "convince myself of an ulterior motive"? I read what was written, and then I asked questions and did research. Are these studies he cites credible? [No]. Why would he bring these up? What motivations would be involved? How do the people he is talking about feel? Did he consider their feelings? If I were Google, what are my options, and what are the results of those options?

Dog-whistles and micro-aggressions thrive on failure to ask these questions. It empowers the status quo to entrench so long as they avoid the absolute most stark of statements.

[lawnchair_larry]

I tend to tune out once I see words like micro-aggression and dog-whistle. It has been my experience that people throwing these phrases around are too deeply immersed in their ideological war to assume any good faith at all in who they perceive as their opposition, which tends to a preclude any productive discussion. You’re wrong, by the way.