| Look I'm not exactly engaged enough to dismantle this piece by piece so this will probably be my last comment but: > Ambivalence is the human default, and logic requires it must be so. You'd do well to do more than assert it. This is ideology. > You loudly proclaim your aversion to all human suffering, past and present, and claim to know how to fix it. I said no such thing, and the remainder of your prior statements are also asserting I made any such claim. Making efforts to fix wrongs is not itself a moral failure, nor is it some kind of foolish pride. > We can't address ALL suffering. That doesn't mean that we can't address ANY suffering. What is odd to me is that this is exactly my point. If you somehow think that racism isn't still "in front of us" as you so boldly claim, I encourage you to prove that substantially and convince the people who to this day still feel victimized by it. > But the solution to the KKK (the original recipe anti-black version) is not to invent a ~KKK (the crispy anti-white version) and tell whites that if they don't join ~KKK then they are in the KKK. I haven't claimed this at all. For what its worth though — you are in some form invoking the paradox of intolerance here. I'm not sure why you felt the need to write this screed, it is entirely separate from anything I've said and completely off-the-rails. |