[traverseda]

That's a bit... ad-hominum. Maybe I'm mis-reading it, but for me it parsed more or less as "I'm not saying you're a racist, but people who say what you're saying are racists...."

If that interpretation is wrong, please do correct me.

I'd like it if arguments could stand on their own, not be dismissed because someone falls into a particular category.

>I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

and all that.

[danharaj]

Useful reading: http://laurencetennant.com/bonds/adhominem.html

The post you're responding to is making the argument "Claiming that you aren't unbiased does not make you unbiased. Trying to be unbiased does not necessarily make you unbiased."

That's certainly not ad hominem at all.

[tbrownaw]

The post you're responding to is making the argument "Claiming that you aren't unbiased does not make you unbiased. Trying to be unbiased does not necessarily make you unbiased."

No, it goes farther and very clearly says it actually mskes you more biased.

[danharaj]

That's fair, I misparaphrased. Still, not an ad hominem because its argument appeals to studies. That could be fallacious, but it's not an ad hominem fallacy.

[Toast_]

Not to be pedantic, but its logically invalid; no fallacy is needed.

[benten10]

...it's like saying "if you aren't poor, you don't know how poor are treated and how unfair life is". The position of privilege one lies in makes it difficult for them to see biases happening against others, and they believe those biases don't exist.

[kelukelugames]

My goal is not to insult. My goal is to share. When people are insulted then they are not receptive to new information. Maybe I should have phrased it differently. Thank you for pointing it out. It's something I am actively working on.