Wrong.
IF the intent was to ridicule the femi-nazi drivel that is spewed out in that first paragraph, then reganaut1 is to blame for not posting a more accurate excerpt.
You know the rules here. We only read the excerpt. And the excerpt makes it clear that Heather is another ugly feminist.
Responsibility2nd wrote: “Wrong. IF the intent was to ridicule the femi-nazi drivel that is spewed out in that first paragraph, then reganaut1 is to blame for not posting a more accurate excerpt. You know the rules here.
If you had bothered to read the 3rd paragraph, it would have been clear that your, and most other comments, were nothing more than ill-advised knee-jerk reactions.
Reading before you type will help prevent your looking ill-informed.
That question mark should have been your first clue.
First sentence of 2nd paragraph:
"These propositions are self-evident to a large, interlocking establishment of government bureaucrats, progressive politicians, college administrators, faculty, “activists,” professionals, and journalists. Yet ..."
That should have given you inklings #2, 3, and 4. Bureaucrats do not call themselves "bureaucrats." (They call themselves "people dedicated to public service.") 'Activists' don't put scare-quotes around the word 'activists'. And if this isn't setting up a paradox, your next sentence wouldn't begin with the word "Yet"
From there on, your keen, incisive intelligence would have carried you swiftly to Heather Macdonald's well-thought-out conclusion about progressives destroying lawfulness, and denying our legacy of tolerance and justice.
Ready Readers' Rule #1: Be Alert to Context Clues.