i dont see the point of one side baiting the other
Well, part of the point is that they're
not baiting each other. I think that most people that hold the social-commentary interpretation aren't doing it to shame those who like show for other reasons. It's just happening naturally as a result of exactly what the two different sources of enjoyment are.
And I don't get why it matters so hard that other people choose to use someone else's art to see a particular issue or set of issues differently than other people see it, nor do I get this hyperbolic mischaracterization.
I think there's a long tangential discussion to be had about this - which would be, amusingly enough given the subject from which is spawned, something of a coming-of-age story - but the gist of it I think is that the current generation is still feeling out the process of identifying and, as necessary, modifying social norms. This generation has seen a number of social "things" (for lack of a better term) come to light/fruition over the past decade or so, largely (but certainly not entirely) revolving around gender and sexuality, things that even just fifty years ago were likely incomprehensible for one reason or another. Things that, even today, are hard to fathom for those that do not live them. So people want to find more of these things, to see what other previously-assumed-to-be-"facts" don't necessarily hold up under scrutiny, but they either don't know how to look or get hyper-excited for it, and they end up finding things that may not be really there.
To those on the hunt, scoffing at the idea that KlK is anti-patriarchy social commentary could be the equivalent of scoffing at the idea that women have the right to vote, or it could be the equivalent of scoffing at the idea that aliens landed in Nevada. Both wildly outlandish social ideas at various points in time, but one is still clearly outlandish while the other is very clearly true. How did those eras separate truth from fiction? Who knows? That's what this generation's working toward, just with their own era's social questions.
Or maybe some people may be looking for social commentary in their cartoons so, in the event their ideas are confirmed by the people that wrote the cartoons, they can go "first". That would certainly fit the current generation as well.
EDIT: This made a lot more sense in my head. Hopefully it's not too insane in written form.
EDIT 2: I just realized that's not even what you asked! Silly me. Refer to my response to Vento in the context of my previous post, I guess.
EDIT 3: I guess the tl;dr way of putting is that the existence of the social-commentary interpretation, the fact that it is at all, is more or less an attack on the people that watch the show for "shallower" reasons. It's not the people holding the interpretation (and they certainly shouldn't be accused of shaming, bad faith, or anything else along those lines just for holding the interpretation), it's the interpretation itself.
