We aren't talking about the media. We are talking about me and you. You said, in my interpretation, that I was assuming racial animus without proof because of my bias. I am now saying you are applying a animus based on a bias of yours.
I tried to give you a way out that made you look less foolish. It would be slightly less stupid if you were arguing "I'm saying this because the media would say this if the roles were reversed".
You said, in my interpretation, that I was assuming racial animus without proof because of my bias. I am knowing saying you are applying a animus based on a bias of yours.
Nowhere did I assert animus. Do you even hear yourself?
I tried to give you a way out that made you look less foolish. It would be slightly less stupid if you were arguing "I'm saying this because the media would say this if the roles were reversed".
You're peacocking.
Nowhere did I assert animus. Do you even hear yourself?
It's implied, or you just pointed out his religion, and ethnicity for the fun of it
They shouldn't be there based on their ethnicity. It's the samething.
?
Whether or not they should be there says nothing about your claim that the reason for the stabbing was 'racial animus'.
If you had pointed out that had the roles been reversed, the media would be crying racism, you'd be right. But now, no.
We aren't talking about the media. We are talking about me and you. You said, in my interpretation, that I was assuming racial animus without proof because of my bias. I am now saying you are applying a animus based on a bias of yours.
I tried to give you a way out that made you look less foolish. It would be slightly less stupid if you were arguing "I'm saying this because the media would say this if the roles were reversed".
Nowhere did I assert animus. Do you even hear yourself?
You're peacocking.
It's implied, or you just pointed out his religion, and ethnicity for the fun of it