You keep using the words "truth", "matter of fact", "accuracy", "evidence of their own eyes"; and refer to people who disagree as "liars", etc.

But I don't think any of that is accurate; I think your words are false and the argument rests only on the assumption that they are true.

If you want to cite something persuasive, you'll need something with more widespread credibility.

EDIT:

> It turns out that stereotypes, however distasteful, usually do have a certain degree of accuracy ... You may not want to live in the world where they do

This is an argument with a strawman that you made up, some absolutist person who says otherwise. If you read my prior comment, I already agreed with you that they have some degree if meaning.

> but that reality is what it is.

However, you don't get to define reality; maybe your definition is wrong.

You claim to want to avoid propaganda, but you are hewing to that approach closely with the assumptions, the absolutes, the lack of skepticism of your own position. My impression of Heterodox Academy is that it's more of the same but regardless, how about finding some more serious sources if you genuinely want to know?