The authors state that it isn't necessary for you to give credibility to the *content* of their faggotry, but not to dismiss that they truly deeply sincerely *believe* that bullshit. The opening paragraph has some great throw-downs about their "have a conversation" manure: >It would be charming for advocates of social-justice ideology to say, “We need to have a conversation,” were they not almost uniformly such dreadful conversationalists. If they’ll converse with you at all, you might hear that any disagreement with them is a sign of your inherent weakness (“white fragility,” Robin DiAngelo), of your intentional refusal to engage honestly (“pernicious ignorance,” Kristie Dotson ), or of your unreasonable expectation that someone do your homework for you (“epistemic exploitation,” Nora Berenstain ). You might find yourself accused of complicity in white supremacy ( Barbara Applebaum ) or misogyny ( Kate Manne ), both understood in an obscure “systemic” sense, though of course the words retain the damning connotations rightly associated with their literal meanings. >In short, social-justice ideologues have a stock of concepts to protect themselves from listening to inconvenient facts or reasonable criticisms. This can make conversations with them impossible. They don’t want to talk with you; they want to talk at you. You’re supposed to shut up, listen and believe, because, according to their underlying theory, any story that isn’t consistent with their approved discourse has “already been told” and “upholds unjust power dynamics.” Chances are, you’ll be insulted and accused of moral failures—participation in systems of oppression, racism or sexism—and the conversation will go nowhere.