[quote=@mdk] I'm sorry but you're exactly wrong. Let's highlight this arbitrary segment for emphasis: [b]he seems to have some strange ideas about race that lean towards racism, but I'm not convinced hes an outright racist, I think hes just sipped some alt right kool-aid and hasnt had enough time to spit it up.[/b] What you're doing here has nothing to do with 'facts not feelings' or scientifical existence or whatever else you decided to call it -- you're determining whether or not a person (or series of statements) warrants thought, based on whether or not he/they pass the 'racist' test. It is [i]specifically and exactly an anti-thought experiment[/i], and it's what the weaponization of racism has produced, and it's why I'm not with you (or anyone else who's doing it) on this. To be clear, I'm not [i]blaming[/i] you for (not?) thinking along these lines -- it's not your fault, you didn't create this problem. The problem is really, really, really, really real though, and it's waaaaaaaaaay bigger than some SJWs on twitter. [/quote] Because there is a serious concern that by not treating racism as a sort of taboo, awful shit will be made mainstream again. Anytime we assign something as taboo, it does have an anti - thought component. Pedophilia is a good comparison. We can't argue the merit of it because we don't want to face the potential repercussions in what we normalize. We don't want to normalize open racism, and so we make these sorts of "anti - thought" judgments. There are of course people who abuse it. Every moral imperative comes with that threat. The trade off for sifting through abusive uses of victimization is hopefully that we avoid full blown racial pogroms.