[samtp]

I only "singled out" conservatives because I was replying to a comment that specifically mentioned conservatives. I didn't think it would be relevant or useful to generalize or list the stereotypical flaws of every political belief system.

I'm really struggling to follow what you're trying to say in your second point. Honestly, if I'm hanging out with a friend of my wife and she starts going into "racially superior" traits of whites vs blacks - I'm going to either look to change the conversation or excuse myself to grab a beer because that's a strangely detailed and long example to get into.

[notch898a]

That's certainly your choice to bow out. My wife is a different race from me, one that has a significantly different composition and cultural background than mine. We spend a lot of time comparing our physical and cultural differences and how they are superior in different situations, and I feel like I learned a lot from it. It's unfortunate others aren't able to appreciate diversity in this way.

I'm pretty sure the person you replied to said nothing about their friends being misogynist/racist/xenophobic. The only thing we know is they were conservative, so your statement "I only singled out..." is a complete sidestep from your process conservative -> "If your conservative friends happen to drop misogynistic/racist/xenophobic ..."

When literally the only thing we know is the person's political ideology and you go straight to talking about if they were saying racist stuff we all know what the implication is, and we all know it was said in a weird way to create plausible deniability that just maybe it wasn't being made.

[samtp]

> The only thing we know is they were conservative

Well no, that's not true. We also know that his wife was "off put" by him engaging with them. And if you re-read my rely, you'll see that I specifically mention her being "off put" 3 different times because that was the main part that I was replying to.

And if someone tried to shoehorn a long winded discussion about "racial superiority" into an unrelated conversation (much like you are doing right now on a discussion about free speech), I would certainly bow out because it's irrelevant and weird.

[notch898a]

>Well no, that's not true. We also know that his wife was "off put" by him engaging with them.

No being off put was a description about the wife not them. All we know about them is they were conservative.

>And if you re-read my rely, you'll see that I specifically mention her being "off put" 3 different times because that was the main part that I was replying to.

There was no mention of xenophobia/racism/etc that was entirely your introduction.

>And if someone tried to shoehorn a long winded discussion about "racial superiority" into an unrelated conversatio

My guy, racism was your introduction, why did YOU shoehorn it in. Don't get upset you brought up racism and now you have to deal with replies including the subject you roped in.

[samtp]

What's pretty telling is that after I mention racism in passing, and you immediately jump in to say "a truly open mind would be open to racist view points". Then you go on giving examples of what you think are "racially superior" genes, as if this helps argue that conservatives being racist is an incorrect stereotype.

[notch898a]

What's telling is that when I even number something as an entirely separate point and explicitly state in reference to talking about an "open mind" you immediately go back into your rant about "conservatives" stereotype no matter that point was entirely devoted to open minds and not about conservatives.