Because we've done this dance before. The objective is to "debate" these "opinions", by which I mean flood links, unsupported statements, and just plain lies. It's all to try to legitimise the opinions, so that they can push "equivalence" of them into our society.

I did say the user was welcome to have their opinion. I also accept that my opinion (that racist opinions are fucked up) is subjective. However given that I hold such a stance on racist opinions, it would be illogical to try to debate these things, or try to reason someone out of it, as I am of the opinion that these views are fucked up. It would be like trying to debate a madman, they hold "fucked up" opinions, and I don't think they can be reasoned with.

I say again to be clear - I understand that the view that "racism is a bad thing" is subjective and others can hold other opinions. I cannot, and will not, try to argue them any more. They can and do state their opinion, and I can and will state mine:

Racism is a bad thing. If you hold racist views, you hold poorly reasoned, poorly researched, callous, possibly even cruel views. I believe those views are "fucked up".

and this is exactly why it is pointless talking to you. I'l just continue to ignore you again. read mu post again, and i will reply if you have anything valuable to say to it.

Of course it is pointless for you to talk to me. I already know all your SJ BS. The claim that the only reason to separate people into groups is to proclaim one group superior to others is just yet another of your nonsense that I'm not foolish enough to believe.

I also could point out that "affirmative action" (that left is so insisting on) by definition separates people into group that action applies to and a group that don't. And it's actually a question what group of people you consider (by your own logic) inferior - people who don't deserve affirmative action or people who need affirmative be on equal footing with people from another group. But of course that would imply that you acrually follow logic.

But I know for sure that you don't follow any logic or reason, since in the other thread you've already tried to prove to me that you don't exist.

Oh honey, stop.

Has anyone received an updated "hate speech" definition yet?

"I already know all your SJ BS. "

That's usually what I say to my sister in law when she tells me The Sharks are going to win the Stanley Cup.

NHL fans will get that. :P

1 - https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
2 - Sarkessian was arguing for equality, not segregation. you stating otherwise shows you never understood her proposition, and therefore it pointless to discuss it with you
3 - it did not really belong in this discussion to start with.

You know, for a strawman that doesn't exist you write a hell lota comments.

Where did I stated that?

That's open for discussion. XD

Definition - "You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack."

then why bring her up in this context?

As seen now - the discussion is now derailed from initial topic. so yeah, I was correct there.

Except, I don't.
Had you even read my initial comment.
No, you were not. What people today call "political topics" are actually "ideological topics". Politics is diplomatic missions, making deals, creating alliances, outmanuvering opponents using law loopholes, etc. Nothing of that is mentioned in so called "political topics" on this forum. Instead we are taliking about definitions of racism, equality vs equitability, free speech and access to other human rights. All that has nothing to do with real politics - it's entirely ideological discourse.

Thus all my statements are still on topic.

ah... but that was exactly what you did, and the reason why I tend to ignore you, it is your modus operandi.
so it was completely non sequitur then... another reason to keep ignoring you, I guess...

and all this is not on my topic... so yes... my point still stand. contribute something useful, or I go back to ignore you again...

edit; just to bring home the point:
this is not what I said at all, and where you are misrepresenting my argument (or just did not understand it).
you may as well have argued that only pensioners get a pension or that pre-school children are not allowed to watch porn movies... this is THE definition of a strawman argument.

I doubt you'll realistically find anyone who thinks that racism isn't a bad thing, you're arguing against a straw man. The problem is 'what' is considered racist. There's a "fucked up" new definition that some people hold such that you cannot be racist against white people. But any form of discrimination against any race, based on their race, is racism.

Honestly we should go back to where we were 20 years ago when we had conquered racism, forget about what anyone's race is again and go back to treating people as individuals. Just make sure anyone coming into our countries are integrating into our culture and compatible with it, and stop worrying about the color of their skin.

EDIT

It was a typo :D

Yeah.

EDIT: In his defence, I do believe he meant the negative there.

Yeah, it's like finding hens teeth.

EDIT: Haha, typo acknowledged. I thought it was a pretty insane thing to say.