Really thoughtful comment, that shows us the core of your objection: nothing.

https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2007/09/how-dawkins...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motive_(law)

Bold claim.

> MW: conservative: tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions

LGBT advocates who want to keep LGBT institutions to advocate from, are then conservatives.

Please check your pre programming.

Freedom Georgia wants a black owned town. They do it because they think of it as proxy for "safe for black people". And they think that because they see skin color as the clue to spot friend or foe.

A different context, to use the same tools (race based prejudice). Both Freedom Georgia and Adams are racists. Either being a racist is not the accusation society frames it to be, or both of them should be shunned. Neither outcome looks good...

> Adam said that black people are a hate group, based on a poll of 1000 people, and it's not safe to live close to them.

How many people would the poll need for you to find it harder to condemn Adams?

Adams was condemned, fired, newspapers print his guilt, and the parent of this thread selects a bit of evidence for his guilt: he wanted to self segregate.

As for the Georgians, we condemn them in private equally as Adams. However, because they are black, society lets them be racist.

In any case, what bothers me more is the art not being separate from the artist. If there's merit in Dilbert, I hope someone picks it up.

I'm using it to explain the news to other people, not to argue for Adams' right to be free from blame for what he said. Here's an asymmetry:

Self segregating is racist if done to get away from black people, and indifferent (or even praise worthy) if done by black people.

> We are, as a society, I suppose more or less aware of power asymmetries.

I agree. And pointed out an asymmetry above.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/12/us/freedom-black-cooperat...

It's not so simple.

My mistake was to engage.

Not by virtue of its blackness, indigenous or sex status, but only in relation to other people. If other people were to praise blackness, indigenousness and being non-man, it would not suffer, but thrive.

Do not essentialize.

The whole movement of correcting social wrongs is made by barking at a social hegemons. And now we come full circle as people seem to believe there are general rules again, except they are the opposite of the rules that started to be barked at.

With a caveat: it's not possible to agree that we have come full circle. The previous hegemon canonized the ones in the "down" direction. And so we get to you, babbling about everyone agrees that it's better not to attack the "down" people.

Sure.

Some do. Some don't.