>>2848042So saying that there's nothing wrong with bigotry and asking if a certain political belief makes me a bigot means that I'm calling myself a bigot? My oh my, that's some mighty word twisting there.
Exactly how have I failed to defend my standpoint? I have clearly shown you how and why you are wrong, and how your denial of an objective reality is going to get you nowhere, and yet you ignore and result to repeating the same words over and over again, like a cult chanting a mantra. Why is it so difficult to accept that an objective measurement is required to gauge bigotry, and that denying so is being delusional?
How the fuck is this harassment? This is a fucking anonymous internet forum. I invite you to fuck off to Tumblr if you want a safe, "harassment free" space, because if you consider wanting answers harassment then I'm sorry to tell you but you're gonna have a bad time on this webste.
Not only that, but when pressed for proof, you either resort to broad generalizations that prove nothing, the "your a bigot" retort or tell me that I'm playing coy. Because apparently asking for proof is harassment now.
And why is attempting to use a hypothetical scenario a /pol/ tier rhetoric? What part of "I don't subscribe to any of these beliefs" do you not understand? Why is it so difficult for you to comprehend that the situation laid before you is entirely a simulation, and that you're proving me completely right by repeating yourself over and over and proving nothing?
Also please do prove that because I don't recall having been once banned by /c/ although I have had lots of warnings and post prunings.
But hey, I guess if you can't even do something as basic as citing racial statistics for white collar crime then you can't do that then, because "facts are irrelevant". Back around the loop we go.
>>2848051Amazing how even your spelling corrections are misladen with errors.
