> My understanding is Cleese was making a blanket argument against what he perceives as "Political Correctness". I reject that blanket argument. Is it possible

> My understanding is Cleese was making a blanket argument against what he perceives as "Political Correctness". I reject that blanket argument. Is it possible that he wasn't making a blanket argument? Did you make a blanket argument? > I also think it's not ad hominem to point out that Cleese is a borderline, if not outright, racist. Is that so? a) What definition are you using for the words "is" and "racist"? b) How do you know your understanding is accurate (consistent with his actual beliefs)? > but understanding Cleese's intent is part of the process of evaluating his argument Agreed. How is it that you (seem to) know Cleese's intent? By what mechanism? > in the last paragraph, I said "especially when those emotions are justified"; perhaps just "when those emotions are justified" > However, as long as the speaker makes it clear they are not condemning Chinese people but rather Communism as practiced in China (or, tangentially, Communism as practiced/preached anywhere), I don't think a negative emotional reaction would be accurate. That's the thing though, isn't it? Whether or not behavior of both parties is "justified". In the 2nd statement ("as long as the speaker makes it clear...I don't think a negative emotional reaction would be accurate.") So, if the person doesn't make it clear, for whatever reason, is it therefore accurate/rational/justified to assume the worst interpretation? If so, is the right to assume the worst extended only to certain individuals, while others must keep opinions to themselves, otherwise they will be branded a racist (the accuracy of that charge being irrelevant, if I'm not misunderstanding)? And what specific attribute(s) of a person might we examine in order to determine who has this right and who does not?