First of all, I’m glad you read the story, but to bookend your comment asking me to rewrite it when you don’t understand much of the context involved is frankly insulting. I’ll address the points you mentioned just to make sure I’m not coming off as dismissive, but if this escalates into yet another “there’s only one good way of writing” comment, I’ll be forced to block you. Straight up and down.
To get a little bit into it, through my numerous writings on Medium, I discovered that if you do not introduce the subject of a story within the first two paragraphs, your read ratio could go down from 50% all the way to 15%. Consistently. So that’s why I cut to the chase immediately, as opposed to writing a thousand other words just because the subject of my article isn’t a presidential candidate. I used to do long intros to explain what I’m talking about (to internet culture illiterates like yourself) but alas, that loses readers’ interest pretty quickly.
And with regards to your critique, I’ll tackle it point by point because I’ve honestly no patience for this bullshit:
1- “Some” means the reactionary block of the left. It’s clear from context who I’m talking about unless you choose to intentionally ignore that those who criticize ContraPoints, are simultaneously those who would scoff at the notion of her being dubbed the Oscar Wilde of YouTube.
2- It’s a notion, not a fact. It’s a subjective statement made by the profiler. Again, making it not a fact.
3- Responding to it is moot since 2 has already been addressed.
4- The Earth’s turn around the Sun is one of the most accurate measurements of time that we have at a celestial scale. We literally measure distance between stars in “light-years”, which is the time it takes light to travel space in an empty vacuum. Saying that it was made almost a perfect year ago seeks to contrast her praise, now against her cancelation.
5- Again, you’ve clearly not interacted with who I’m talking about.
7- Stylistic preference.
8- ContraPoints being the Oscar Wilde of YouTube is a metaphor. What I’m saying is that it applies to her on more than a metaphorical level because she’s explicit with her ideas. How’s that so freaking hard to get?
9- Going back to the original point, if you have no context for what I’m talking about, the literary devices I’m using might seem obscenely out of place, but they’re not.
I suggest you take that “complete rewrite” BS somewhere else because I’ve little to no patience for this.