> Maybe I'm wrong and/or you are genuinely open to learning here, but experience suggests people who write comments like yours can only be helped if they force

> Maybe I'm wrong and/or you are genuinely open to learning here, but experience suggests people who write comments like yours can only be helped if they force themselves to interact with less privileged folks for an extended period of time. Wow. First, I grew up in a situation such that all of my friends were (and mostly remain) “less privileged.” I’m also familiar with bigotry directed towards myself. Second, whether that does or does not describe me has no bearing on the merits of my argument, which is sort of my entire point through these threads - that’s not a rational heuristic. Third, I’m going to circle this back to my original point. You never explained why my argument is fallacious or a strawman, opting instead to deride it as such without a reasonable explanation. I never made an argument in favor of bigotry or genocide. I never said that advocating for such things is good. In fact, I’ve specifically and explicitly said they are not. My point, very specifically stated already, is that advocacy of violence is not violence, and further that this distinction is important for the purposes of discussion that arrives at rational conclusions consistently. I don’t know how you arrived at the comment you wrote, because you’re not just missing the point, you’re firing an arrow at a far off place I don’t recognize. It seems like you’re fixating on verbal violence directed towards others when I am talking about public advocacy in the general case. It’s deeply frustrating to me that you brought personal background and identity into this, and furthermore that you consistently mischaracterized my argument. You’ve twice now called it fallacious without any substantive refutation and without responding to my central thesis. It’s clear that you’re not interested in a good faith discussion. What you’ve done here is extremely antagonistic to another individual expressing their views. Consider this: you dilute the extent to which violent aggressors can be held accountable for their actions if you group them with the same descriptions and responsibility as those who advocated for the violence. And while it may not be the case specifically with genocide, in the general case, you enable censorship if you attempt to call violent those who advocate for violence. It is not a far leap from there to claiming thoughtcrime, and while you might arrive at the rational conclusion by using that heuristic for genocide, you will not necessarily arrive at the rational conclusion for a context in which violence is controversial but not immediately wrong.