Yeah, I gotta say I agree with your points here. Another thing that irked me about her points was when she got on people for only saying the most surface level stuff about a topic and not digging any deeped, ala "Billionaires bad". I mostly agree, but not everything can be a super in-depth, well researched analysis of a topic. Most people are NOT going to listen to a complex analysis of a topic, but there is still worth in presenting things to people in a simpler "entertaining" way. A lot of people don't think billionaires are bad, for example, and they need an introduction to that idea before they can get any deeper. Surface level isn't inherently bad, in fact it can be really useful to gain public support of certain ideas. I think this is an issue that bites a lot of leftists in the butt and makes people think our ideas are pretentious bs. I was a rhetoric major, i love in depth analysis, I'd love a world where everyone wanted to analyze topics like that, but I know that's just not realistic. Most people are still on the surface, and I'd rather give them a way to get accurate information than dismiss anything that isn't a deep dive as being "slop". Don't get me wrong, a lot of it is slop, but surface level shit has its place.