Comment by tpoacher
4 days ago
Do I need to be "specific"?
You made the general claim. I'm pointing out that the general claim when applied to a different minority population suddenly does not sound as reasonable, and could easily cause distress and discussions of persecution and discrimination.
Pivoting to wanting to exceptionally examine an exact opinion for this particular minority is simply Special Pleading. The point stands that, no, people should not be expected to shut up and "defer to reasonable people" just because their opinions and interests are in the minority.
> Do I need to be "specific"?
Only if you want to make a coherent point. It sounded like you wanted to come up with a counterexample, but stopped halfway through finding one, and thus stopped halfway through making your point, hence my asking.
Given that you instead wrote 3 paragraphs about why you shouldn't explain what you're talking about, I don't think even you can think of a counterexample, so I don't see this conversation going anywhere productive with regards to your point.
> I'm pointing out that the general claim when applied to a different minority population suddenly does not sound as reasonable
Hard to "point out" something that isn't true. It could sound reasonable, it could sound unreasonable. You haven't explained what you're actually talking about here, so impossible to judge so far.
Feel free to contribute a nonzero amount of evidence towards your case here, and try to convince folks you're right. Remember, the topic is not people, but opinions of the form 'doing X is asking for trouble, and should be interpreted as a threat'.
On the other hand, if you want to come up with bigger and better reasons why you shouldn't explain what you're even talking about: I'll pass, and my point stands even stronger than ever.
I see what you're doing and it's brilliant. 99% of people probably understand tpoacher's point perfectly, but you're pretending not to in order to be the 1%, and daring him to counteract his own point by ignoring you. Bravo.
I think the reason folks don't get his point, is because he thinks the discussion is about people, rather than ideas.
So it makes sense that his point makes no sense – it has nothing to do with the idea "doing X is asking for trouble and should be interpreted as a threat" for any value of X, unless you think there's a value of X which all black people believe and 0 non-black people believe, which I imagine is pretty basic racism.