I have to agree here. Injecting ‘nuance’ is an easy way to derail a discussion so that the obvious harms of a thing get obscured. The discussion devolves into emotional reactions to some aspect of the ‘nuance’ and the original point is lost. And nothing changes, which suits the powers that be just fine.

Nuance is a powerful tool for maintaining the status quo by disrupting the conversation. Leave the nuance to the academics.

Effective messaging campaigns require message discipline and dead simple provocative points repeated endlessly for a generation or two to effect change, usually.