That is only true if you ignore what I have been saying. First huge flaw in your theory there.
No, the flaw in my theory was thinking I could have a discussion with someone who clearly isn't interested in one -- you're not only wrong, but you have no idea what you're talking about. Case in point:
Essentially, if I have an orange house and someone walks by who is offended by the color orange, that's on them.
Let's say that, for decades, orange was the color of houses of people considered sub-human. Anyone passing by could abuse the people living there, order them to do physical labor without pay, even kill them with zero repercussions. Then one day, society decided we weren't going to do that anymore, and as a sign that we were serious about that, we eliminated orange from the housing color palette.
Do you still think someone who lived in an orange house, or whose parents, grandparents, or other ancestors lived in an orange house and is aware of the history of what an orange house represents has no cause to be offended?
This is what you're doing when you equate orange houses and racism. They're not even remotely the same thing, and trying to equate them trivializes and minimizes an issue we're still struggling with today.
Now I get where you're coming from -- you think, 'well I didn't do any of that stuff, so why do I have to apologize for things I didn't do'? Others in this thread have already pointed out what that says about you as a person, so my repeating it isn't going to make it sink in.
This entire thread is pretty silly in my opinion.
On that point, I agree. The admins have already published one article about the issue, apologizing to those who were offended. One admin has even actively requested additional articles from those who feel the original article either didn't go far enough or didn't say what really needed to be said from an organizational standpoint. Coming into the thread and waving your arms around like a troll saying, "I don't see why this is such a big deal," is neither useful nor necessary. But then, perhaps I just answered my own question.
I mean, honestly, the point you seem to be trying to make here is that anybody should have the right to be an ass if they choose to be. Philosophically, that's a defensible position. Socially, that's crap, because just as people have the right to be asses, others have the right of freedom of association, which includes the right not to associate with asses.
Edit: Almost forgot, speaking of the right not to associate with asses -- *plonk*.
--
Pauper