Steve and I have different styles, different intentions and I’d argue slightly different audiences. That isn’t to say there isn’t overlap between our world views – but two people saying similar things can have different approaches and get different results. You and Yael have highlighted such a thing within your own work.

If you enjoy reasoned, well researched, politely observed and carefully backed up articles (as you also often write) then Steve is your man. His articles are excellent and I admire them (and him) greatly.

But that isn’t what I write – I write provocation from the centre ground. I pick what I think is a reasonable position and defend it with all the rhetorical skill I can muster.

Whilst Steve’s writing is a calm measured voice of reason in a field of angry BIPOC writers, mine is an angry moderate in opposition to the madness of society in general however it happens to present itself. I also don’t write exclusively about race – my latest story is about Elliott Page for example. I can understand why my style doesn’t appeal to someone who enjoys high levels of academic research and who writes in such a style – but such a preference is not universal.

You decided a long time ago that I’m an angry white guy, I’ve repeatedly refused to deny or confirm it (as I don’t believe its relevant) – but you repeatedly bring it up as a reason for why my work can be dismissed as angry and whiny…. Isn’t the constant assertion your version of reality trumps mine an example of that horrible gaslighting you tend to accuse me of doing ;o)

Hehehehe. See what I mean? Different styles. Steve would always play fair and is much nicer than me. I think we can agree that we both admire him greatly and he’s got an awesome take on life.