> vaguely hinting about ideological picks doing ideological things, you knowing this is what they're doing, but then stubbornly refusing to acknowledge that and just repeatedly saying, "show me the connection!" when you know very well what it is?
> You're making this out to be some kind of final stand, when this is the first time you have even gotten close to putting your point in writing.
“show me the connection” is a request for evidence. You’re saying I’ve said that repeatedly then you’re claiming I’ve only done it once at the end. What else would “a demonstration of the connection” mean?
> So, you cannot have an honest conversation with a racist because just saying, "maybe you think some races are superior, but..." could be weaponized in inter-party fighting as a tacit endorsement of racism.
I’m not a member of the left wing debate club you have in your mind (if it exists at all) but my starting point when having an honest conversation with a racist would be to ask “what evidence justifies your racism?”, because absent that we’re not having a conversation based in reality.
Same here. The reason I’m asking for evidence is basically what you’ve already said: OP’s assertions are vague at best. Yours haven’t been a lot better. It’s all attributable to “ideology”. Then you say he’s “one of the most prominent voices for that ideology”. What ideology? And by what metric is he one of the most prominent voices?
This is my problem with much of the right: it’s gotchaism. The only reason he’s prominent is because statements he made in a private WhatsApp chat were leaked and circulated in right wing circles. The president of the Oxford students union is not normally a person you ever hear anything about on the national stage. The vast majority of Oxford students don’t even care about who they are.
So the right makes a relative unknown prominent by excessively hyping their statements then turns around and says “look at this prominent spokesperson!”. The union have disowned his comments. He has disowned his comments. And yet, despite his views being endorsed by absolutely no one, he’s still held up as emblematic of a larger, completely unattributable larger movement (the “ideology”) that is responsible for all kinds of problems, apparently including Oxford university’s ranking. And anyone associated with that “ideology” (vague enough that it encompasses whoever it needs to) must atone for the sins of this newly prominent spokesperson they never even heard of a week ago.
That’s why I have asked repeatedly what these supposed connections are. Because when we actually get into the details none of this adds up to anything. And none of it has anything to do with Oxford’s university ranking, the actual topic at hand.