I wonder when you will learn to actually answer facts with logic and reason.
We are talking about your actions. Your actions are racist actions.
You could be friends with Pat Condell and that alone would not be a racist action. If someone said you’re a racist just for having a racist friend in your private life, THAT would be guilt by association.
Pat Condell is a spokesman for a white nationalist party. Pat Condell is therefore a practitioner of white nationalism.
You are publicly promoting and supporting Pat Condell. You are publicly promoting and supporting a practitioner of white nationalism.
Publicly promoting and supporting practitioners of white nationalism is an action that legitimizes those practitioners’ racism, and is therefore a racist action.
Now, I just want to know why you think this is OK.
What I’m guessing is that you somehow categorize Pat Condell by special pleading, because of your familiarity with him. It appears you are somehow able to say to yourself, “he is an atheist first and only a white nationalist second, so that’s OK.”
I wonder how this is in practice different from someone like Matthew Hale, who is a white nationalist first and an atheist second. We can categorize and order their priorities, but both men are practicing white nationalists. So what is it that makes one OK and the other not?
If Matthew Hale makes a video promoting atheism, is it morally right to promote his video? The immediate, first order effect of promoting an atheist video by Hale would not be racist. But of course legitimizing him as a worthy person would legitimize his racism, so the indirect, second order effect of this action would be racist.
It seems that in order to defend your promotion of Condell, you would also have to defend similar promotion of Hale. And then it’s open season; if David Duke or Nick Griffin become atheists, it becomes morally good to promote them for their atheist activism.
I see you promoting a white nationalist, and I think, “How low will you sink, I wonder?”
Why is it morally acceptable to promote the activity of white nationalists? And why is it morally even worse for me to point out that your actions legitimize white nationalism?
That’s what I’d really like to know. Why am I the bad guy for pointing out what you’ve done? Why is it always morally worse to point out someone’s racist actions, than for that person to engage in those racist actions?
If white nationalism is a real problem worth serious discussion, then your bare minimum of moral duty is to at least struggle with the issues I’ve brought up here, and attempt to present some serious response that explains why it’s acceptable to allow special pleading for certain white nationalists and not others.
But if defending your ego and thereby minimizing the importance of racism is your priority, then by all means, attempting to deflect attention onto me with a false claim about “guilt by association” is preferable.
