> the courtesy of possibly being mistaken and instead cast my position as a strawman prepared to burn for being wrong.

I thought you intentionally used 'systematic', the word 'systemic' actually makes your argument weaker.

> Though I am not surprised

Why are you not surprised, are all people just bad who don't blindly agree with you?

> For instance, your middle response (whether you are aware of it or not) excuses insults as exempt from being racist simply because the objective is to maximize harm, which is itself a pretty inflammatory proposition.

No, it does not excuse insults, insults of all form are bad. What I said is: when picking insults, you pick the one that hurts the most, because at that point, your objective is to do the most damage.

Just because someone utters the word 'nigger' does not make them racist. Otherwise Kanye and everyone who sings along would be racist, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG_dA32oH44 .

> Furthermore, you are keen on tearing my viewpoint apart without providing evidence of your own to show that yes, America is living in a post-race society.

The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof

If I tell you the Earth is diamond shaped, I can't really expect you to believe it without some hard evidence.

If you say that society is still racist, you are the one who needs to point out why, I'm not the one who needs to point out why not.

> Notably, you actually did do this with the original anecdote about having a black president. Notably, you actually did do this with the original anecdote about having a black president. And, to disprove your point, the burden is on me to find a proof by contradiction, which I supplied also in the form of an anecdote.

The original claim: white men are privileged
My reply to that: some of the most privileged people are black and/or women therefore that statement cannot be true

> Rather than acknowledge this, you instead replied that I was a hypocrite, a response I figured was not one worth responding to. If your defense is an ad homenim, I see no reason to engage further.

I used a few examples to disprove a generalised statement, you tried to use an example to reinforce a generalised statement. If you look at all my comments, I never imply that there is absolute 0 racism and sexism in the world, my issue is when people generalise and start pointing at mystical hidden 'systems'.

> (Rooted in strawman)

More like rooted in you choosing the wrong word.

> Who are you to dismiss their concerns when they give a clear signal this is a problem?

How does my character have anything to do with the ridiculousness of this claim? Who are they? Where is the study that proves out this is an actual issue?

I can find women who get offended if I complement them on their looks, does that make this sexist even if majority of the women would actually enjoy that?

> (A question that is a huge signal to your underlying intentions: to signal you disapprove of my viewpoint and never a chance to exchange ideas, and that you have won)

The intention was not to stop the conversation, I was pointing out that your arguments so far are incredibly weak, if you have better ones, I'm happy to debate them.

> Casting this as a me-versus-you is disengagement and disinterest on your part. I want to share, you want to win

It's not me-versus-you, it's me pointing out that people with similar opinions have trouble when they receive basic questions.

Examples: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpfOW3vhZbPMsPHa8TGjL1Q/vid...

> Language matters.

It doesn't invalidate points though, just because I use harsh(for people worried about PC) constructs doesn't mean what I'm saying is wrong.

Trump won the election, despite his incredibly hostile and offensive style of discourse.

I worry more about the points I'm making than the style or tone.