You wrote, “So, you don’t consider the way you come across as substantive? I said specifically how it came across to me. You requiring me to specifically name what portions is incredibly petty and a good excuse to not even consider that you might come across as hateful and vindictive. Try manning up and take a critical look at how it might not come across in a constructive way.”

All you did is make broad comments about how the whole piece came across as “incredibly petty,” “hateful” and “vindictive” to you. Actually, that happens to be the way Ta-Nehisi Coates comes across to me, but instead of simply dropping those loaded adjectives and leaving it at that, I came forward with a detailed, evidence-filled argument about why his point of view is wrong, or, more accurately, myopic in missing the bigger picture. You, on the other hand, just dropped those adjectives and stopped there. Obviously, if I thought I was being “incredibly petty,” “hateful” and “vindictive,” I would’ve written something different or in a different way, so I must disagree with your labels, but because there’s nothing but labels there, there’s nothing else I can do or say. If you want to “man up” to use your phrasing and point out to me some specific and particular points that I was off on, you’re welcome to do so. If you’re too lazy to do that or too intellectually incapable of doing that, there’s nothing for us to discuss.