But I can tell the difference between commenting - often sarcastically - on real-life racial situations and serious “racism.” Apparently you can’t. I cut people a significant amount of slack but I don't think it's so easy to tell the difference. Let me put it this way, what exactly is the sarcasm about?
In a media world full of politically correct hypocrisy there ought to be times when the charges of racism themselves can be ridiculed as they rightfully ought to be.
Absolutely. And I'm also perfectly willing to defend Rush Limbaugh on Barack the Magic Negro because I understand exactly what the song meant. But just like with that song, it doesn't matter of it's motivated by genuine racism or not if it looks racist. Is it really worth an inside laugh if it alienates plenty of people who should be listening to the conservative message?
To observe some self-imposed “zero tolerance” code of absolute silence as opposed to tolerating free speech is to be cowed and a victim of politically correct intimidation. Adults talk about adult things here on Free Republic.
Ah, the Excluded-Middle Fallacy. No internet discussion would be complete without it. I'm not recommending a "zero tolerance" code of "absolute silence". That and the classic, we won't be "cowed and a victim of politically correct intimidation." No, why try not to look racist, right? Instead we'll make ourselves look like the stereotypical white bigots that the left and mainstream media try to paint us as, right? That makes about as much sense as it does for black kids to avoid getting educated because being educated is acting white. Yeah, that'll show 'em! We'll look exactly like our enemies want us to look!
Question the assumption that you are mature enough to handle it.
Ah, the ad hominem, too. More logical fallacies from such a mature individual?
But if you are going to be so sensitive as to think that the sarcastic “amish” mentions are racism I think you are simply a victim of the left’s imposition of phoney white guilt.
Ah, and the faux psychoanalysis of my motives. Would any internet discussion be complete without that, too?
Ah, and the faux psychoanalysis of my motives. Would any internet discussion be complete without that, too? Your response started out OK but degenerated. Simply put, you are in the wrong IMO.
Just like those who attacked Rush IMHO I don't believe that anything I say will convince you. And I purposely took the Question Assumptions idea to task because you brought it up in your screen name.
Rather than trading pointless barbs, as I've said what I meant and I stand by it, let me give you an example of just a few times just recently that people have unfairly and unjustly called "racism" when it was not warranted. I believe that your accusations serve as an appropriate warning but not sufficient evidence of true racism so I would let them slide under the First Amendment principle of freedom of Speech (which is under assault step-by-step by the PC crowd.)
This may also serve as an example of why you may be getting more serious resistance to your premise than you might have expected. One has to draw the line somewhere and many of us are so sick of the false racism charge that we see no reason to infringe on others' free speech anymore. It doesn't make any real difference. See Rush.
