I know, and what I'm trying to point out is that it misses what I consider the larger point. Your point above is tantamount to a "they started it" defense. Both you and the person you are responding to can be simultaneously missing the bigger picture. I was deliberately responding to the child comment because it would address both the child and the parent. My point is that your comment (and the one you responded towards) is wrongly focused, which has very much to do with your point. The fact that you seem unwilling or unable to see that perspective, even just to refute it, makes this dialogue tiresome. It would be like somebody writing an article about how a politician's rhetoric is divisive and somebody constantly defends it by saying it's eloquent...you can be "not-wrong" and still miss the point.
>I was literally primary concerned opposing the original message I responded to
I was literally primary concerned opposing the original message I responded to - the one that claimed article says those hobbies are bad. It does not sound terribly difficult to understand to me. I opposed characterization of article itself.
You are trying to explain to me something about alienation when people in the room dont have the same hobbies, which has nothing to do with my point.