This happened a few hours ago in the Gawker comments and I'm still collecting my brains off the floor. In Trotter's article about how the Tea Party didn't actually boycott Ebony magazine, I pointed out that the hatred was still very real, and someone helpfully pointed out to me that the real racists are [drum roll] the writers of Ebony.
I don't even know where this guy is coming from, but he is very serious and obviously considers himself a very thoughtful person. He reads the Economist. For those that don't care to check the link, here is what he said:
If you're trying to understand me, then I suppose the most important thing I can say to help is that I think people are people. I think the ideal we as a society have to work to is the one best articulated by MLK:
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
A magazine that calls itself "Ebony" does not contribute that achieving that ideal, because it celebrates a particular people simply for the color of their skin. The word "discriminate" also means to recognize a distinction. The magazine recognizes a distinction that isn't an intellectually sound way of dividing people. Racism is the false belief that races of people have abilities or characteristics particular to their race. People are people. And their skin color should be irrelevant.
And I didn't answer your question about reading it the first time because it's irrelevant. Unless I'm mistaken about the reason it is named "Ebony", and it's actually a magazine about the dense dark wood, then I know enough about it to know that it's based off a racist concept. But I'll answer your personal question this one time anyways. No, I don't read Ebony. I don't read any magazine of that sort. I read boring magazines, like the Economist. But I won't answer personal questions in general about myself, nor will I ask others personal questions, because it opens the door for ad hominems, an inductive fallacy of logic.
And I'm not trying to be snarky either. I'm just trying to help you understand me. I believe I understand your view.
I'm not asking to dog pile the guy, but what the fuck? Seriously, what the fuck?! What makes this guy? How does he find his way to Gawker?