>>21
Then don't be surprised when nobody takes you seriously, since you dismiss instead of engage. If I was wrong, it would be easy for you to craft an argument. But neither you nor anybody else does. All you accomplish is reinforcing what I've already said.
>>22
Those are bold claims, I think it's interesting that you chose not to elaborate on them. Care to?
>>23
Yes, that's why I am saying it to you on this website. Convenient that you left out the context of why, though. I don't go to other websites and demand they do what I want, I find websites that do what I want and leave when that stops being the case. This seems to be the opposite of what you are doing, and the operative problem I described revolves around people like you demanding that things change to their liking instead of creating their own spaces or using ones that already exist. I also am not familiar with ssz, but under the assumption you've assumed I use it despite no indication, I call strawman.
>>24
This may be hard for you to grasp, but I and many others of whom I speak are multifaceted characters. Pointing out the irony that the primary initiative against what you hate made it explode in popularity is not an admission to a lack of agency, nor does it demonstrate that the people described have only that one trait. In simple terms, describing a carrot as "orange" does not mean that this is the only thing that can describe the carrot; It's one small piece of the whole. In the same way, people spurred to political action and thought by people destroying communities they care about are not only defined by that one thing. Implying otherwise is disingenuous.