Your response(s) is a classic example of Virtue-Signaling.
You:
<FYI, suggesting that someone is on drugs just because they make an argument you don't like isn't a legitimate refutation, it's just immature insults and ad hominem.>
No, it's called "quid pro quo", meaning, 'something for something'. You asked me a f**ked up question, and then I ask you a different f**ked up question. I don't owe you an answer to the yours, and you don't owe me an answer to mine. Score is 0-0
1.Asking a loaded question isn't making an argument. It's asking a loaded question.
And you "arguing" for laws that treat everyone equally regardless of skin color is a waste of time, because these laws are already established, and have been established for decades. Sorry, you missed out on all that noble activism going on in the MLK era. Virtue signaling.
2. Nor does it prove that I disagree with those laws. You are "Jumping to Conclusions."
I posted two related memes about SNOPES and their evasive answer about racist comments that have been attributed to LBJ. The second one, with Biden, shows that SNOPES can't honestly fact check a positive comment "allegedly" made by President Biden
about LBJ. This went totally went over your head.
But lets virtue signal some more, shall we?
The SCOTUS ruling 6/29/2023 6-3 ruling in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard holding that admission programs at Harvard College and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill were unconstitutional. You do agree with them, don't you, that "laws that treat everyone equally regardless of skin color" should Actually. Treat. EVERYONE. Equally. Regardless. Of Skin. Color. Don't you? Wow, me too. We might actually have something in common.
<. . .therefore makes you sound like a pro-Jim Crow racist.>
Not to me it doesn't. Get your ears checked because I think you have some kind of selective hearing dysfunction.
