I was going to point out that it is possible to conduct racist statements through loading and framing for the purpose of rallying or shaming.
The problem is that the kind of people who make empirical statements (us), tend not to make morally loaded and framed statements. Since those of our political persuasion do not, and we tend not to be influenced by them, we forget that most argument (if we call it that) is not empirical, even if it is, its correlative and subject to selection bias. Humans are moral creatures. Humans seeks status more so than anything but life.
Racism + Morality *vs* Truth + Empiricism
Whether an argument is moral or not is a reflection of the individual’s reproductive strategy. So in a sense, any moral argument that consists of rallying and shaming is in fact a truthful expression of one’s reproductive strategy. The problem is that our reproductive strategies differ. And moral arguments are incommensurable. As such moral arguments are meaningless. And they only necessary under political monopoly.
Yet if we conduct exchanges rather than monopoly, and we force no costs upon others in the process, then we are acting cooperatively (morally) with those we disagree with (reproductively) but not sacrificing for them, and we cooperate with those we agree with (reproductively) and may choose whether or not to sacrifice for them.
SO the problem we face is that while we have used monopoly government to construct a market for goods and services, we have not also used that monopoly to create a market for commons – leaving the only monopoly the rule of law.
The Propertarian Institute
(PS: when someone fights an empirical statement I usually just ask them why they’re liars. How can liars and lying be a moral action? How can they say they do good by lying? Is lying good then? etc, etc… But every response has to return to the central question: why are you a liar? )
FWIW: I don’t do racism. try to fix our civilization, not blame others for pursuing their interests by taking advantage of our failures.