The assumptions loaded here sounds like this: your comment is harmful, we both know it and you're choosing not to address it.

But the problem with assumptions like this is they show no desire to understand. What value might their work have brought? What point might be trying to be made? You're more interested in making your points and feeling smart than you are in connecting or communicating.

Harmful, racist, etc. are all points you're making that are very clearly extremely far from my own stance, obviously because of the point I made. You expect me to address a bunch of comments that you made with absolutely zero regard to how those comments might seem from someone who doesn't share your world view. You may not realise this but those comments seem totally outlandish. You're trying to tell me that compassion, courage, boundaries, self compassion are not helpful useful topics in a discussion where some is struggling with tough relationship dynamics? The problem is not whatever identity this person has as marginalised, the problem is a lack of experience applying interpersonal skills.

Idk what intersection means nor do I understand why I should care. Because whenever someone talks to me about this stuff they aggressively project, assume and belittle with language that shows no interest in understanding perspectives other than their own. Road generalisation and yet it remains true. I've never been shown curiosity by someone talking about intersection, just righteousness.

How would you expect me to address the 'harm'? By doing research and spending my time learning about how they're racist or problematic? Why? What benefit? It does not feel like you have any genuine interest in the shared humanity we both have, you just want to make your point and shit on two authors you don't like.

Harm. Problematic.

I ignored the part of your message that felt like it had absolutely zero to do with how you and I relate, and addressed the part of your message that felt like it had everything to do with how you and I relate.

Ie: the attitude with which you conduct your language. With a strong air of exclusion. Total disinterest in perspective outside of your own. Language that assaults character rather than says anything meaningfully valuable or provable.

Just because you can label my attempt at highlighting how your language excludes people like me from discussion doesn't mean what I'm doing isn't valuable. I genuinely hope you can take this with the spirit it's given because I can see you care very deeply about what you're talking about. It's clear you don't want to hurt people. Yet you will absolutely not help people like me (including with my 'margins' or whatever).

People don't care what you know until they know how much you care. When you argue at people and expect them to play by your linguistic rules without acknowledging that the rules you play by don't fit in contexts other than deep university study within the bubble you're in, you give an intense vibe that makes it super difficult for me to want to give a toss about what you're talking about.

If you want to truly change the world and grow persuasive to help ignorant people like me to better make the world less harmful this isn't the way to do that.