What I am saying is that the evidence seems to suggest that there is at least a decent possibility that Wilson's actions were racially motivated. The writer didn't just say "That's racist." She gave the back-story and explained her point of view.
It wasn't AT ALL calling a "you lie" statement racist. It was talking about a "you lie" statement coming from this particular congressman.
All you had to do was say that there is zero chance this particular congressman was motivated by race when he said that. You didn't do that. You instead say that you have no clue. Would you object if I claimed that there was a better than 50% chance his actions were racially motivated?
|