Sacarsm alert! Yes, that was first time the conversation touched upon racism and minorities, and I brought it up. The other explanations simply don't ring true: namely, that I am completely over this conversation and am generalizing about the thousands of words you've already said, instead of getting involved in a semantic pissing contest about whether you "called me racist" or "implied I was racist" or "said I was supporting racists" or am "on the wrong side of history" .... Either way, great semantic detective work, and I'm really convinced this is a solid case.To where I still didn't say minorities. But you came up with that.
I've done no such thing. You're entitled to your opinions and beliefs, and so am I. We disagree on them, and I have tried to illustrate exactly where we disagree, so as to simplify ending this conversation. I'm not sure where you actually come down on free speech- you don't want me to continue holding my opinion on political correctness, as it "concedes the point" to Trump ... it's a bit silly, but no, I don't think you are threatening my right to free speech. I think you're being a ninny.And I'm not against free speech, but you've had absolutely no problem--none whatsoever--accusing me of just the opposite for a while now.
Blah blah blah... I'm so tired of this particular line. It's bullshit. I do not enable the alt-right. I am sitting on my couch typing on the Internet to another person who I've known for a decade and neither of us are Trump supporters.Enable. You enable them.
Go on and tell me how I'm enabling them.
Again, I think being on the wrong side of history is a pretty big faux pas. I don't really care for the semantic pissing contest around whether it is a crime or a thought crime, but the phrase "on the wrong side of history" is usually reserved for racists and war criminals.Two things I've not even come close to doing in this thread: -Accusing you of committing a crime
No shit, thought crime is an expression, not an implication that you are seeking legislation.-Suggesting there should be laws against thought of any kind.
Yeah, because you seem to be only passingly familiar with this subject and you doggedly refuse to admit that criticism has come from both the left and right. Are you ever going to admit this simple fact?I don't know if that's what this is. I'm a Libertarian after all, and your position on this particular issue seems pretty socially conservative.
From the New York Times, 1990:
And yes, I view myself a classic liberal.NYT wrote:But more than an earnest expression of belief, "politically correct" has become a sarcastic jibe used by those, conservatives and classical liberals alike, to describe what they see as a growing intolerance, a closing of debate, a pressure to conform to a radical program or risk being accused of a commonly reiterated trio of thought crimes: sexism, racism and homophobia.