Okay, that was my vague understanding too. But I’ve also seen pretty substantial criticism of the approach, too, e.g. blaming it for being damagingly divisive without bringing a correspondingly large benefit, or of being myopically focused on one explanatory factor to the point of being badly misleading. I think it’s too simple to say that the opposition is only to a mischaracterization.

But I guess your point is that most of the air in the room gets used up before we get anywhere near such a conversation: it’s almost all straw-manning and alarmism, where a phrase is getting simultaneously demonized and distorted so every response to it is just a knee-jerk reaction instead of getting to the kind of substantive criticisms and robust replies you would hope for from a reasoned approach.