There can be no fruitful political discussion with people who are insincere or hiding their views

[pipi_k]

71. One more time...

My first reply to you in that thread was to ask how much NA DNA a person would have to have in order for an answer NOT to find the name "redskins" offensive would be permissible (with you).

Is someone with only 5% Native American DNA not qualified to find it OK, whereas someone with 100% NA DNA gets a free pass from being accused of bigotry?


From there things went downhill, with you accusing me of saying something I never said.

I never said I was MORE offended at being asked the question.


What I DID find offensive...and still do...is polls that appear to be started in order to judge others based on their answers.

What you don't seem to understand is that my opinion on that issue isn't likely to have any effect whatsoever on anyone else. First of all, I'm not that important.


Polls to gather basic information are fine. But I get the feeling that a few here start polls with the intention of mentally dividing DUers into two groups...the Good Guys and the Bad Guys.

And I don't recall getting upset because you wondered what I had said on the topic previously.

What got me riled up was the non-answer to my question and the accusation that I was attempting to "rationalize" something...


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4728867


Really? "Rationalize"? Rationalize what, specifically?


I asked what I thought was a pretty straightforward question:


Do people who answered in a manner you don't agree with have the right to an opinion that's just as valid as anyone else's?


Or are people who answered in a manner you don't agree with just dirty racist pigs?


Here's a clue...if you want people to be honest, then stop bashing them over the head for being honest, even if it's an honest opinion you don't agree with.