Again, for clarity, I am asserting that the original article focuses on student mistreatment and not race, TechCrunch subverts it, and the parent comment refocuses on it. In other words, the "real issue" was pre-established as the context for and precedes my comment. All my comment served to do, was concisely articulate the issue of the preceding contexts, which is self-evident when reworded to be less generic, "Use of institutional force by the police and school officials to suppress or punish divergent student behavior."
I doubt you could concisely articulate anything if your preceding contexts depended upon it.
Umm.... My "preceding contexts depended upon it"? First, as stated, the preceding contexts were not mine. Second, concisely articulating someone else's stance or summary, or a current context, while not easy, is trivially simple.
Here's an example: Contents of Moby Dick => "A whale fishing allegory about the idolization of man's desires and its limitations."
Which exactly is my false conclusion? Weren't you referring to the real issue? Doesn't the determiner in that mean that there is a only a single such thing? Did you offer any basis for the assumption that it was indeed the single real issue? Those are the assumptions of my conclusion.
It's fair if you wrote "the real issue" and actually meant something else, in which case my conclusion would indeed be invalid, but not writing in clear terms hardly puts you in a position to accuse me of equivocation.