To be clear, I didn’t hijack anything. I responded, as any writer on Medium is allowed and encouraged to do, for two reasons. One, the information presented was, in my view and experience, not true. Two, the tone was clearly disingenuous. My response was not insulting, demeaning, or derailing.
It is not something that from my perspective is up for debate, and as such, I will not provide further comment.
Please note the above statement clearly situates the merits of debate as seen through my own perspective. Stated so, as to explain why I would not continue discussing it.
My work is training community based, participatory research fellows through a qualitative model of research inquiry. So it is not simply my opinion, it is my profession. It is also something I will be studying at the PhD level in January of next year. And no, I am not being an arrogant dick by saying that, I am establishing some grounding around why I think the way I do. These ideas are in no way new, they date back to 1981 with a text by Cherríe Moraga and Gloria E. Anzaldúa, This Bridge Called My Back: Writings by Radical Women of Color.
That work has been further refined, expanded, and grounded in the seminal public health text, Social Determinants of Health, 2nd Edition, by Michael Marmot and Richard Wilkinson. So, when I see what, to me, is a gross misrepresentation that effectively reduces several firmly established ways of understanding important issues down to “offense over the new word of the day”, or a metaphoric land mine, I will react. Just like I did.
I’m sorry you view that as dogmatic.