

I’m not making prescriptions, man, I’m just telling you how people use the word. You have to think about how people use hyperbole.
Mid is often used in reference to things that are culturally popular, and so is a way to denigrate them. In that way, the person is saying “actually, Marvel’s not that good,” or “eh, it’s not really worth your time,” or “you seem kinda stupid for liking trash media so much.”
In other contexts, ‘mid’ can mean ‘average’ just fine: “Not good, not bad. Worth one go around, maybe.” That’s why I said it does and it doesn’t.
Does your intimate knowledge of the civil rights era include how people use issues in euphemism to lie about what actually motivates them? You know, the whole reason I even brought up that example.
Okay, realize for a moment that the fig leaf strategy is specifically meant to capture people like you. I know it doesn’t seem that way; that’s the point of them hiding their intent. I’m not critiquing their points, I’m asking why they’re spending so much energy on this. I’ve seen lots of comics I don’t like. I scroll past them.
Here’s a question: Gamergate. Was Anita Sarkeesian really that bad a journalist? Or did people hyper-fixate on her shortcomings for months longer than necessary as a way of damaging the reputations of her and feminism broadly?
You and I both know now, today, that gamergate was bullshit. But did people—maybe you’re very special, but I don’t mean you, I mean people—know back then that “ethics in games journalism” is not really what those people were upset about? Because I don’t know if you remember, but gamergate was pretty popular for a while.
I think they’re attacking a woman they don’t like. That’s in the subtext of my other comment.