I thought I would take a moment to sum up my thoughts on this sub-thread (from the comment I first replied to, downwards). What I did wrong: Fell back on a sn

I thought I would take a moment to sum up my thoughts on this sub-thread (from the comment I first replied to, downwards). What I did wrong: Fell back on a snide remark, when it would have been much more productive to properly explain myself to begin with. The points I failed miserably to make: - The commenter (jansho) talked about comments AND newspaper columns that they had read, then proceeded to list a number of quotes with no references. - When asked for references, it transpired that they were mostly talking about the comments section of a newspaper website. - I don't believe that it is fair/accurate to conflate opinions in the comments section of a website, with the website itself. - It is not unreasonable to request some reference links to back up a blanket statement that goes on to includes quotes. jansho: "it’s pretty prevalent to associate minorities with a host of problems and crimes such as grooming and vandalism. The Rochdale story is absolutely disgraceful, but the comments and newspaper columns that I read scared me too" - It is not unreasonable to want more than a single author of opinion pieces (i.e. Katie Hopkins, who I agree is a pretty disgusting individual) to back up the suggestion that this is a wide spread problem with newspaper articles. My origin comment should not be interpreted as disagreement with the point being made. But if we are arguing with people who make blanket generalizations and statements, then we must try hard not to fall into that same trap, and to hold ourselves to a higher standard. This is the trap that I believe I and jansho fell into. I wrote this reply to try to improve my own argument and to organise my thoughts on the subject more clearly - I don't expect anyone to read it, but if you have, I would like to hear your thoughts.