I wasn't there when you had the conversation with Andrea, so if it sounded as though I was trying to put words into your mouth, it was only me attempting to understand the context of what little information I had about your interaction during that phone call. If you'd been telling me about it in person, by contrast, I probably would have gotten a much clearer picture of the points Andrea had been trying to make to you.

I still don't see why "Defund" was so essential when initially placing the problem of police brutality further into the public consciousness. I do understand that it's a complex system with a lot of multilayered solutions that are needed. In my view, that's all the more reason why "Defund" sounds so misleading. For people who haven't studied systemic racism and the failures of the criminal justice system, it sounds like as though its proponents are saying the solution is just to slash police budgets and we'll be on the right path.

Obviously, that's not what you or me or Andrea or a majority of activists are actually saying, when we talk about police reform. "Defund the Police" doesn't do justice (pun intended) to the severity and complexity of the need for -- and implementation of -- police reform.

I also agree with you that the concept of CRT has been mangled and misrepresented -- when it comes to the dichotomy of what Rufo wants people to believe versus what an actual curriculum could entail. Again, the devil is in the details. So many voices want to focus on dumbed-down platitudes rather than a thoughtful curriculum that would teach students about the realities of systemic racism. Whenever I hear someone utter "CRT" -- regardless of whether they are progressive, conservative, or in-between -- I always have to ask them for a clarification so I'm not attributing something to them that's beyond their intention. It's virtually impossible to do that when these platitudes are being fed to the general public through misleading news sound bites, secondary sources, or incomplete narratives.

I think a bunch of LGBTQ+ folks are surprised how hard the right is coming after them. They just want to be law abiding citizens.

As a member of the LGBT+ community, I've never been surprised by it. But as an activist and a human, I speak for myself. I don't need other gay folks taking it upon themselves to be my proxy. I'm currently reading this fascinating book called "Gay Power" and I'm learning how some queer activists in the 1950s and 1960s actually viewed it as an acceptable "compromise" for homosexuality to be listed as a mental disorder -- ostensibly because the prospect of outright murder was so much worse. If I'd been alive back then, I'd have some choice words for those gay people. "Not getting murdered" is a very low bar. So, no, I'm not going to tolerate how people from the Far Right (and some others) are fine with repressing and suppressing me. But I'm also going to do everything I can to avoid confusing or attacking other people who genuinely just want to learn (but who don't want to be demeaned by me, in the process).

Whether I'm talking with somebody about privilege associated with their sexual orientation or their religion or their economic class or their neurotypical status...there's no need for me to go out of my way to disparage them, in the process.

Earlier today, in fact, I was telling a close friend of mine why something he'd written could be construed as ageist, and how such language so often falls under the zeitgeist's radar. I literally told him, in the email: "Now, I'm not accusing *you* of being an ageist person. I know where your heart lies toward people of all backgrounds."

Trying to get people to understand these nuances is emotional labor. I do it on a daily basis. I ruminate about it while I'm not directly interacting with people. For large chunks of the day, I question whether I should even bother to be alive. I know all too well about emotional work.