>>96861125>Jesus christ, how can you say something like this and not think you sound like a lunatic?What's wrong with pointing out that we're not discussing value judgments, and feeling the discussion of value judgments is dreadfully close to the discussion of who is and is not allowed to make certain things: also not at issue (something that's been said four or five times in this thread - I think it's finally starting to sink in though)
>>You're the one that's arguing in favour of segregating people into small little catagories and in-groups that are only allowed to talk about themselves/other groups that were arbitrarily made acceptable targets.The following me,
>>96853612>No one's saying that. I was going to ask a rhetorical question, about if you honestly believe the same nigger joke told by James P. Wickstrom and Chris Rock really have the same meaning, but you lot (maybe not you specifically: anonymous message board) have been so bloody minded in your pathological colour blindness that you've responded in the affirmative to such things elsewhere in the thread.
So instead I'm going to ask you to explain it to me. How am I being racist for thinking that the same joke told by those two people has the same meaning?
Are you saying that absolutely any and all differentiation, no matter how innocuous, based on race is racism? The answer might very well be "Yes, duh!".
And when I say innocuous, I particularly mean not based on any sense of hatred, desire for control over, or sense of superiority to another race, and maybe even coming from a place of love, respect, and acceptance (this includes white people. hastag it's ok to be white).
