That’s an assertion, not an argument. If you’re going to make an argument that black people can’t be racist because racism requires systemic power, at least make the argument. It’s a bad argument, and forgets that local conditions, say, being a special needs kid kidnapped by several black thugs to be tortured on facebook live, reverses the typical power relationship, but at least that’s an argument.
“when one person states that 2 + 2 is 4 and another says it is 17, or do you just go with the one who is right?”
Why should we care about which one is right, when it comes to welcoming cultural diversity? One person says Allah. Another says Yaweh. Another says Christ. Another says Buddha. If someone wants to come up with a mathematical system where 2 + 2 = 17, why should I exclude them from polite society?
“If someone says “lung cancer is correlated with smoking cigarettes, and cigarette smoking likely leads to lung cancer” and another says “God gives us cancer because he hates gay people,” do we really need to consider both arguments?”
Okay, not exactly a direct rejoinder, but your hyperbole here makes me wonder if you think we should allow people who believe gays should be thrown off of buildings and killed into this country. We have a name for these people — sharia believing muslims. Do we really need to consider their culture as appropriate for importation into our country, or any country for that matter?
Now, as that cognitive dissonance swirls around for a bit, realize that “cultural diversity” is as empty of a phrase as “sustainability” — it effectively means, “whatever I want it to mean at any particular time I say something without any requirement to be consistent”.
A more honest approach would be “some cultures are better than others, and we only want the good ones”, and then start having real arguments about what we value and abhor about any specific culture. Instead, we have capricious and arbitrary mores driven by the wind.
“If some ideas like that also happen to be talking points among the right wing, it’s entirely their right to be incorrect, but it doesn’t mean I have to take them seriously or waste time talking about the merits of their foolishness.”
Here’s the danger you don’t quite understand — someone can make the same specious argument about left wing ideas. Simply demonize your opponent, and discredit their position not through argument, but through ad hominem.
You might find that you’re more persuasive if you actually make an argument, rather than proclaim dogma.
As for myself, I promise, when I assert that you’re incorrect, I’ll also make a logical and reasoned argument to back up that assertion. Hopefully you find that more interesting that someone just calling you names, or writing off your arguments because of your political tribal affiliation.
