But that's what I'm saying. They're using one specific thing to make a larger point about how people are too pearl-clutchy about media. There is no reliable way to completely change someone's views with anything, including drugs. But using that to say people are too concerned with drugs changing people's personalities is disingenuous. Who cares if media doesn't turn a coal miner into a college-educated Hillary supporter? Who, outside of the most brain-dead libs that make up a small percentage of all libs, even thinks that? It's entirely a different point from "This movie should have more black people because everyone seeing more black people in positive roles, or roles in general, will change things culturally". Which is what they're railing against. They're railing against the expectation that media does that. It's like a reverse Motte & Bailey. They retreat to the most indefensible argument from the most reasonable one.
But that's what I'm saying. They're using one specific thing to make a larger point about how people are too pearl-clutchy about media. There is no reliable way to completely change someone's views with anything, including drugs. But using that to say people are too concerned with drugs changing people's personalities is disingenuous. Who cares if media doesn't turn a coal miner into a college-educated Hillary supporter? Who, outside of the most brain-dead libs that make up a small percentage of all libs, even thinks that? It's entirely a different point from "This movie should have more black people because everyone seeing more black people in positive roles, or roles in general, will change things culturally". Which is what they're railing against. They're railing against the expectation that media does that. It's like a reverse Motte & Bailey. They retreat to the most indefensible argument from the most reasonable one.