And yet you decided not to list any of those countries and instead called the poster racist. I'm not saying you are wrong about there being some definite exampl

And yet you decided not to list any of those countries and instead called the poster racist. I'm not saying you are wrong about there being some definite examples that support your position, but do you think there may also be some counter examples that go against it? Which side, your argument or the opposite, has the preponderance of evidence? This is how an honest and productive argument should proceed: assertion(s) is made, rebuttal is introduced with supporting evidence, back and forth commences until no new evidence can be introduced, contenders stop posting, posterity decides. But that is too dangerous, isn't it? There is always the chance that the unthinkable might just end up being the most plausible. And whenever the status quo is predicated on perfection of specific perception there is no benefit to be gained by entertaining forbidden notions. Because you declined to suppor your own argument coupled with the personal attack ("racist" should be a technical description but thanks to comments like yours that ship has sailed), you have surrendered any technical moral high ground for a breastworks of Virtue Signaling that seems tactically sound at the moment. Pray to the gods you may have abandoned that your enemy doesn't discover ideological "tracked vehicles" before your team does.