Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meaning is hard. What know I cannot do is construct an coherent or even intelligible argument from the quoted paragraph. I can extract meanings from some of the sentences; but I also can see you have not even bothered to explain your objections to them. More importantly, it seems you don't even care about coherency. It looks like that to you, if something "feels bad" then it is bad.
What the hell are you talking about? > More importantly, it seems you don't even care about coherency. It looks like that to you, if something "feels bad" then it is bad. I don't understand where this is coming from. Please explain what you mean, and why you think that. > but I also can see you have not even bothered to explain your objections to them. My objection was that the parent post claimed the quote was "word…
The man is schizophrenic. You are holding him to account for a kind of performance that he is biologically not equipped to provide. He isn't harming anyone and as far as anyone can interpret what he says, many times he uses words like "nigger" he is complaining about things like how we have made computing overcomplicated. I think it's worth it to cut the guy a break.
That doesn't mean we accept racism in general, it means we don't have to pick on people who can't help the way they express themselves. Do we pick on people with Tourette's for saying bad words?