I dunno what she doesn’t get. It’s almost as if she doesn’t have the same priorities or know to think exactly as you’ve asked her to. When someone writes a story — their point of view should reflect all points of view especially those outside their point of view. Any failure to do so deserves censure and immediately invalidates the original thought. You have clearly been more than charitable in your patience attempting to explain this. It’s almost as if people, even cohabitants of similar schools of political/social thought, will continue to perceive reality through a lens formed through their own life experience, and sometimes stray from the proscribed dictations of all their critics (despite many generous attempts). One cannot have a thought that isn’t determined explicitly by their social identity, and yet, insofar as they belong to a defined ‘in group’ they must append their thoughts to afford for all aspects of all ‘out groups’, or they are actively inflicting harm against that group and tacitly supporting insidious social/political movements.
Credibility in this medium is not determined by the way in which someone demonstrates insight and thoughtfulness by testing the strengths and weaknesses of the truths they take for granted. It is gained by showing complete deference to acceptable language and demonstrating the righteousness of one’s thoughts. One must adhere explicitly to self-appointed dictators of acceptable terms of conversation if they want their larger point to be acknowledged. Otherwise, we would have to revert to thinking outside of established ‘acceptable’ modes of thought, and may be forced to confront possible inadequacies in our own belief systems. It’s a good thing you’re here to reinforce the rules of engagement - it’s not as if we can just sit around and manufacture this outrage. It’s not as if basing the merit of anothers opinion on the social value of their identity is more indicative of one’s own prejudice than it is of a worthy criticism.