The problem with your observation, MGOH, is that it implies that the people, myself included, who argued against daylia's propositions, express or implied, vague or certain, whatever they may have been (I no longer can tell), are reacting defensively ("getting their hackles up.") It doesn't account for those people who find the assertions and implications offensive and unfair in and of themselves.

Enough said. I got caught up in it, true. But I now see the futility of any continuation.

If someone says something about [a third party] which is critical, and they are saying what they sincerely think is the truth, either it's accurate, or it isn't.

If it's accurate, fair enough. If it isn't, it isn't really about [that third party] at all. So it might be worth correcting the mistake, and it might be worth trying to find out why the wrong impression got out - but it's never worth getting upset about it.

If it's demeaning, offensive, and about a large group of people based upon some classification, it's hate speech.

(To see my point, Kevin, just re-read everything substituting the word "Palestinian" for "American," and I think you can see whey I might lose my cool, calm calculated demeanor ever so briefly.)


Dan