The general pattern is something like: we have X and Y. Y is clearly different from X, because it involves A, B, and C. Someone figures out how to patch X so that it also has A, B, and C, and then they proclaim that it makes it essentially a Y. But then someone says “ok, I admit that your patched X has A, B, and C, but now that you applied those patches, I can see through the cracks in those patches, and the thing that strikes me the most about the difference between X and Y is not A, B, or C, but some other thing D, which was not salient to me, until you showed me an ABC-patched X, because my attention was fully drawn to A, B, and C”.
(Plausible that this is obvious to you atm, but in case it’s not, or in case it’s a productive rephrasing.)
The way I think about this is:
(Plausible that this is obvious to you atm, but in case it’s not, or in case it’s a productive rephrasing.)