Quote Originally Posted by JamesWales View Post
That is what AfricanBluebird suggested on page 3.

On your second point...I mean, you accuse others of confusing fact with opinion. The irony is just breathtaking.

I literally post a link to an academic analysis of twitter abuse of politicians. You just repeat a few tropes.

Nonetheless, if indeed you and the others can accept that people can crititise someone of colour for something and that criticism can be irrelevant of race then I would consider this progress..

We all know that people on the left are allowed to hate on Priti Patel and it not be related to her skin colour or religion. Why can't the same privilege be applied to others? Why can't people be allowed to think someone didn't come across well on a press conference without it being related to skin?
I think you started before Page 3 by seeking to make some equivalence between the motivation of those criticising a woman who had been wrongly incarcerated for 6 years because she wasn't sufficiently grateful to the latest Foreign Secretary and those criticising a hard-nosed politician who:

undermined her own Foreign Secretary by holding undisclosed and unauthorised talks with a foreign power whilst part of a collective government sufficient to be dragged home in ignomy to be sacked:

Is a proven bully who broke the Ministerial Code but was protected by her Prime Minister sufficiently to see his own ethics commissioner resign in protest and

is engineering ridiculous plans to use the Royal Navy to turn back immigrants and asylum seekers.

Yet all the people criticising Patel are just as likely to be racist as the ones slagging off Nazarin Radcliffe.

Fair play. Cracking argument!