re: #480 000G

It’s not a question of sensibilities, it’s a question of non-sequitur. Simply stating the correct fact that racist sentiments (not “views”) are behind disproportionate sentencing and punishment laws does not make true the statement that DF was “espousing anti-black ideas” in the context of the debate that you were having here.

I did not say DF “was ‘espousing anti-black ideas in the context of the debate that [we are] having here.”

But he does harbor anti-Black ideas. I do not have an issue of pointing those out.

No, that is what you implied. Otherwise your statements would be completely unfounded. As it stands, they are merely false.

No, again, there was no “implication”. I said, quite directly, he doesn’t know what he’s even talking about.

If I must, I will say it again, too.

How did DF’s racist sentiments logically affect the veracity of the content of any of his statements on “lynch laws” in here?

“Racist sentiments” is your terminology, not mine - let’s just make that clear.

DF knows jack sprat about “lynch laws” of any decade, yet had some kneejerk response to something I said about them. You can tell, because “of the 20s” was his own addition to what I said…ask him why he added it, because I’ve no idea.

Oh wait, you can’t. He ran away.