All credibility is lost when she links to PragerU for her definition of intersectionality.
Besides that, by her own logic of free speech, people have a right to call for boycotts/cancellations, do they not?
Free speech for me, not for thee?
Besides that, by her own logic of free speech, people have a right to call for boycotts/cancellations, do they not?
Free speech for me, not for thee?
At best, someone could use it as part of an adversarial process at arriving at the truth, but the author doesn't do that. They take the definition at face value. (A ridiculous definition at that).
I wouldn't use PETA for my definition of factory farming.
So yes, if you aren't able to find a non-partisan definition , then I assume the whole piece is partisan, and therefore lacking credibility.
No one ever called for bans on yelling fire in crowded places. The US government called for bans on distributing pamphlets that went against their first attempts at imperialism.