Comment by mises

> I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're not one of his racist sycophants.

Much appreciated, but the way you word this implies that if some one disagrees with you, he is a racist sycophant.

> Every one of his racist sycophants I've ever encountered have been men.

But I've usually heard "man splaining" defined as a man explaining "at" a woman. Have all the targets of his "racist sycophants" been women? You are making sex an issue where it does not need to be one.

> Many how have an extremely simplistic, distorted understanding of what racism is. That doesn't make them right.

You can't just claim every one who disagrees with your point of view on this has a "simplistic, distorted understanding" without supporting that. My understanding is pretty simple: racism is deliberately treating people differently because of race. I guess you could take that as simple, but I view it as a stark moral wrong and so don't see the need for a more complex one. If you disagree, please feel free to discuss why.

> criticizing their political beliefs by associating them with Eric Raymond's racist beliefs

No reason to try to draw a baseless association between other stuff and bad stuff some one has said.

> objective facts.

Any thing you didn't provide a link for I consider subjective. You can't declare your opinions "the objective fact".

> If they don't have a problem with the hostile political messages that ESR adulterates all of his arguments with, then they should be able to tolerate mine too.

I don't like the political message with which he adulterates his beliefs, nor did I say I did. I opened my above reply by criticizing him. However, I see no reason why I cannot criticize you for adding unnecessary political opinions to a discussion.

> Perhaps they should read ESR's Sex Tips for Geeks

This whole "writing" seems to be contemptible. I'm not defending it.

In summary, I'm not defending this guy; I don't like him either. I just don't like the way you stated your objection.