This is a strangely hostile interpretation of what Carlson said and also of what I have said. You seem very ready to be angry about this. I am interested in a l

This is a strangely hostile interpretation of what Carlson said and also of what I have said. You seem very ready to be angry about this. I am interested in a lucid discussion of the topic, and I would be happy to engage with you in that way if you are so inclined. I think it is pretty clear that in context the Carlson quote means "how white men [should] behave [according to their culture (which is not completely homogenous but does have a bulk of fairly common values sourced from Christianity and longstanding cultural cross pollination on the continent and related colonies)]". Other cultures have different cultural traditions and rules for behavior. This is a fact and it is not innately offensive, in a vacuum. We see N-on-1 combat as immoral because we have been brainwashed with a particular morality. I don't believe it is the case that all groups throughout history have seen N-on-1 combat as immoral. Would you claim that they have and do, and that N-on-1 combat is universally immoral? My best guess at why people are angry when this is discussed is because they have internalized our time-and-place morality as universal, and so any mention of people having a different morality is interpreted as equivalent to calling them "bad people". Calling other groups "bad people" is itself highly immoral in today's time-and-place morality, so, transitively, anyone mentioning other groups' differing morality have themselves committed an immoral act. The moral impulse in the observer is thus inflamed. There is an extremely ironic submerged Eurocentrism in this way of thinking (i.e. internalizing our Euro-rooted time-and-place morality as universal).