Hmmm, I think you mean "this allows people to let themselves off the hook when they're mean and/or lazy. It allows people to absolve themselves of responsibility and say "somebody else will do the hard work. It's not hypocritical if I don't practice what I preach." It doesn't fit into my essay because it's a cop out.

I see this argument all the time. From all sides of the political aisle. It is hard to not be angry and contrarian, I'm not disputing that, but I won't affirm the belief that this is "fine". It's not. MLK wasn't able to do it because it was easy for him. He was able to do it because he made the effort. We all have to take responsibility for our contribution to the discourse. But yeah, you seem to agree with all of this whilst also trying to fight the responsibility it places on you.😉

I also don't believe that that you or anybody else will "never" reach an emotional point where they can do this. You don't need to take it to the extreme of "embracing" your aggressors I never suggested this (the exaggeration is another way of making the reasonable requirements seem unreasonable). I'm just saying that it's important, for you as well as for those you disagree with, to engage honestly and fairly and reasonably. To not dehumanise each other. Every human being is capable of this. No human being is capable of doing it perfectly every time.

I'm not preaching to the choir, because I'm talking about making this effort for everybody. Even the cancellers. As I said in the article, we all need to need to figure out how to be more empathetic, especially with those we disagree with. And we all know what it's like to fail to do this. So the goal is simply to increase the proportion of the time we're successful. But to sincerely try to do that. Not to always give yourself the “out” of “nobody can do this perfectly, so it doesn't matter if I scream and shout at people because I’m ‘fighty.’”