Because that makes my stance, my voice, my experience, my ethos greater?
Because if I'm "not privileged", I'm worth listening to? But if I am, I'm not?
I thought I was "twisting your words" to point out that you presumed to label me (and others)?
Now you ask me to label myself so you can evaluate my arguments?
No, I'll stand my arguments as arguments. The labels that apply to me don't matter.
To wit: This case has nothing to do with "hate crime".
Your insistence that it does runs totally counter and opposed to your declaration of what hate crimes are.
You get angry at me, when you don't agree with yourself, and I point this out.
You don't know me, much less "very well".
So you have to project reasons to dismiss me, because your arguments are all based upon what "class" you belong to, and who's deemed to be allowed to have a relevant viewpoint.
Well, that kind of is my point about "Hate Crime Legislation", after all. I don't, err, really, need to argue with you, as you're... making my point for me.
no subject
Because that makes my stance, my voice, my experience, my ethos greater?
Because if I'm "not privileged", I'm worth listening to? But if I am, I'm not?
I thought I was "twisting your words" to point out that you presumed to label me (and others)?
Now you ask me to label myself so you can evaluate my arguments?
No, I'll stand my arguments as arguments. The labels that apply to me don't matter.
To wit: This case has nothing to do with "hate crime".
Your insistence that it does runs totally counter and opposed to your declaration of what hate crimes are.
You get angry at me, when you don't agree with yourself, and I point this out.
You don't know me, much less "very well".
So you have to project reasons to dismiss me, because your arguments are all based upon what "class" you belong to, and who's deemed to be allowed to have a relevant viewpoint.
Well, that kind of is my point about "Hate Crime Legislation", after all. I don't, err, really, need to argue with you, as you're... making my point for me.