Hadn't meant it ad hominem -- I don't know you, and I sincerely think you'd be a pleasant person to spend an evening chatting with. I did indeed mean to confront a certain kind of argumentative persona, which you may or may not see yourself as occupying. Fact is, what I had in mind is a type of persona I find distressingly common. Clearly there are types that irk you, too, and I seem to come through the CRT that way, at least to you, at least at present. Sorry. Most people would prefer to be liked. But not at all costs.

Looking back on where the thread started, it might surprise you that I think your approach is certainly the right one to the original provocation. Given the situation of a tour-guide, who must see herself/himself in an authoritiative, primary-info-giver role, the particular guide's evident conviction that the slaves' satisfaction was the most important factoid to deliver is vile as vile gets, and I think I'd have reacted pretty explosively (actually, no; when I encounter something outrageous, I usually splutter, leave, and think up all the comebacks later). What we have exchanged refers to an entirely different type of interpretation -- not the quick'n'dirty soundbite kind of characterization, but the more nuanced and complete picture. Given the opportunity to say one true thing about slavery, the guide made a gross distortion.

Adam