I can't even figure out whatever the hell it is that you are trying to "argue" for or against
He tends to rail against individuals. That he thinks this is any worthwhile or useful way to strike at people he disdains would say whatever it says.
I'm certain you've seen it in the world: Someone isn't
-ist, they're just so determined to strike after something or someone they will say anything. You know, like some people voting for Trump, echoing his rhetoric, and spending years making excuses aren't really racists, they're just trying to "own the libs", or some such. In another incident, for instance, not so long ago, someone tried suggesting they were doing a good thing, that retorting against one's own straw men in order to condemn and complain was helping another person understand what that person was saying. You know, like, he's helping someone he disdains and denigrates by telling them what they think in order to tell them what is wrong with them. It's not exactly unusual, around here.
It's much akin to why there are so many
notas in society, like
notaracist, or
notamisogynist. Some years ago, a colleague on staff defended the myriad racist tropes deployed against Obama as a policy argument, and when faced with the point that there wasn't really any attached policy argument, postured that the radical Obama, even before he was elected, forced these people to deploy racist tropes. And at some point, I wonder how much mileage we might get out of referring to a scene in the movie
Airplane!, yet here we are; his
retorts↑ are hardly new for their
belligerence↑, but on this occasion it is intended to cover his flight from the question of imposed behavioral-economic expectations. If we follow the point you're looking at far enough back, we run into a
fallacy↑ akin to the McElroy Lie, an antifeminist sosobra. Four and some odd years ago, I
suggested↗, "Every time we see the phrase, 'a rape culture', it behooves us to check the context."
The present question was what bad choices "white people" were making in the U.S.; the response was that racism was a choice, which drew
nonspecific retort↑ complaining, "This concept that America is a 'racist nation' is ridiculous", and went on to accuse Bells of something he appears to have made up in the moment. That phrase, "a 'racist nation'", raises the same question as McElroy's strawstuffed surrogate. If the application, on this occasion, is different, well, the comparison itself is not necessarily insignificant: Where McElroy appeals to the fact of individual human diversity as the enlightened flame to burn away the strawstuffed surrogate, she seeks to evade consideration of societal manifestations per their functional results; Seattle, in his appeal against the pretense of a racist nation, vaguely counterasserts a mysterious alternate history.
Your response↑, cracks me up for the available knock-on. It is well observed, of course, that Seattle went with emotionalism, especially considering his entendre, because there is also a question of how the fallacy he offered was anything but an emotionally-driven retort.
In either case, the straw fallacy hopes to have a certain argument, which in turn invests in appeals to emotion:
How dare one call the U.S. a [___] culture/society! The historical record itself is clear; there are reasons why McElroy would prefer to focus on the mundane fact that human beings are not psychologically, monolithic, or Seattle would hope to mitigate and misrepresent history. As Seattle
observes↑, "Some people are racist. That's the way humans are, worldwide." That wannabe platitude was actually deployed in service of another fallacious misdirection.
Still, for those attending even the basics of the American discourse on supremacism, it's kind of silly how many points of inherent denial this sort of trolling aspires to cover: "Acting white"? Ask Bill Cosby about that. "Unsafe to be black at Yale"? We did, actually hear those concerns in the discussioon around the sleeping-while-black episode. Hiring? Maybe ask Kalpen Suresh Modi about that. These aren't obscure examples.
To the other, he's reflective of a couple trends circulating among supremacists, lately. One is just the bit about counteraccusing racism; the other is actually the personal attacks—every line of
#80↑, for instance, is fallacious, intended to flee the obvious point of behavioral economics in history. It stands out that he doesn't seem to actually know how to argue his own point. To the one, emotionalism, sure; to the other, reality rather quite blatantly speaks against the clumsy whitewash he tries to present.
And as this continues, the
ongoing performance↑ is just stupid. That's the point. It's a troll job intended to break up and bury salient discourse.
He doesn't actually have much of anything to say.