[throsby]

Yes, everything he said was racially charged and confrontational. But that doesn't necessarily make it hate speech.

Let's assume for a moment that the target of these pejoratives was an alt-right troll who directed those exact slurs at Sargon of Akkad. Let's say they made it obvious they were homophobic white supremacists by attacking Sargon's mixed heritage as 'racial impurity'.

When I steelman Sargon's emotional response, what I get is: "don't you alt-right trolls realise that you behave exactly the same way as you claim the [nasty black people] do? You are not living up to the false standard you have set for the polite and respectful white 'master' race, so your claim to superiority amazes me. If you are going to behave like the [nasty black people] and [nasty gay people] you despise so much, then don't expect me to bother wasting my time debating you."

Do you find this interpretation implausible for some reason? Can anyone offer a better one?

[zimpenfish]

> Let's assume for a moment that the target of these pejoratives was an alt-right troll

Do we know that it was?

> Do you find this interpretation implausible for some reason?

I do but that's because, taking all the interactions I've had with his output into account, I'm not given to charitable interpretations of his intentions.

> Can anyone offer a better one?

Yes, he's happy to use casual racism and homophobia until someone calls him out on it then he backtracks to claim it's satirical. But what you really mean here is "can anyone offer a better one that I agree with" and I suspect the answer there is no.

[throsby]

Sorry mate, your assumptions on what I "really mean" are incorrect. I was looking to promote divergent thinking to see what other interpretations were out there. Everyone can have a different subjective opinion on which is best and whether I agree or not is beside the point. Not every conversation has to be a debate, you know?

> he's happy to use casual racism and homophobia until someone calls him out on it

I don't listen to this fellow often because I find the sound of his voice irritating and I don't like how he cherry-picks evidence to support his views on UK politics. But none of the limited output I have consumed contained any casual racism. Can anyone link to any other examples that demonstrate this?