> This comment section not understanding where I was being satirical.
That means you didn't meet it[1].
[1]That balance you were talking about. You missed it. If too few people understand your content, it's not the people that's the problem. As someone attempting to present an argument, the onus is on the presenter to make the argument readable, not on the reader to squint until it gets readable.
IOW, if you can't be bothered to write your message well, why did you expect other people to be bothered to read it at all?
What makes you say "too few" understood? It's a balance, right? So if plenty of people understand, and the right people didn't understand, then it's right on target.
And it looks to me like lots of people understood.
That means you didn't meet it[1].
[1]That balance you were talking about. You missed it. If too few people understand your content, it's not the people that's the problem. As someone attempting to present an argument, the onus is on the presenter to make the argument readable, not on the reader to squint until it gets readable.
IOW, if you can't be bothered to write your message well, why did you expect other people to be bothered to read it at all?