Ah, the classic approach: dismiss, insult, deflect, and avoid any actual debate. Instead of engaging with the content, you ridicule the tool I used to refine my response—conveniently ignoring that I did my own research before ever consulting it. You also claim to value context while simultaneously insisting that a single sentence in a decades-old essay should be taken as gospel without any consideration for its broader meaning or intent."

“Your ‘fact-checker anecdote’ is particularly amusing, since it ironically proves my point. Context is precisely what separates informed discussion from cherry-picked outrage. But of course, why wrestle with complexity when you can just claim ‘there’s plenty of evidence’ without citing a single source? That’s not wisdom—it’s just lazy.”

"And yes, something does tell me that none of this will matter to you in the slightest. But at least I have the courtesy of engaging with ideas instead of hiding behind sneering dismissals. Enjoy the illusion of superiority—it’s the only argument you seem interested in making.