Ah I see, you definitely misinterpreted. I was indeed describing them as two different groups.
Group A (myself and I assume most here) have been looking for more specific and obvious political/cultural messaging from the writers, and in focusing in on the details, we were missing perhaps the single most consistent messaging of all.
Group B (The angry Twitter users) are an example of what happens when society isn't recognizing the real strength that is showing (and being receptive to) vulnerability. They (falsely) believe strength comes from hiding vulnerability.
The writers have been telling us this very apt concept all along, but myself (and many others based on posts here) haven't yet fully noticed how radical an idea it actually is. The more obvious messaging flows from this idea.