> If I've "cherry picked" data
...
> trying to rebuke data
What data did I rebuke? I'm addressing that you chose to not only distract from the actual issue at hand, but also chose to bring up specific true-but-200-years-afterwards facts. Your selection of those outside facts is the cherry-picking. You claimed to do this to prevent over-simplification but instead commit it yourself by raising what is at best nihilism and has the effect of promoting racism.
> For instance you imply that because people elected politicians that supported slavery, people must therefore have liked or supported slavery
Supported, certainly. Slavery wasn't a small issue, it was forefront, as demonstrated by the many high-profile compromises and conflicts, and that it ultimately led to a civil war, as seen in the very declarations of succession and surrounding language. Such views and actions at such a scale don't just happen, they are either accepted or resisted.
> I take it you support, or think it's justified, killing hundreds of thousands
I do not, but I believe the country as a whole de facto declared that they did. And yes, while I was against that particular topic and spoke up and voted accordingly, there are many actions I take that support and sustain actions that I vocally claim to be opposed to. That my actions belie my words and conclusions does not make may words and conclusions incorrect - it points out a level of hypocrisy. Rather than declaring that because I'm sometimes a hypocrite there is no point in judging my actions or those of others, I'm saying that we must continue to push to improve. Wrong does not become Right just because I've done it.
But I don't want to lose the topic: your original post which spent 50% of it's content talking about slavery in Africa today. This is no more relevant to if "just 5 years" was appropriate than the mating habits of the fruit fly, but unlike such trivia you chose matters that would place a negative connotation on Africa and Africans.
> I think our entire worldview should be shaped by facts.
This is a misleading statement - where did I say otherwise? The issue is not what facts exist, but why you chose to raise these particular facts in this particular context.
> Language policing is one of the first step towards moving into a world where facts themselves begin to be unacceptable.
How are you not performing an equal amount of "language policing"? Your reasoning applies equally to the language you were objecting to. I doubt you believe that 5 years of slavery is inconsequential, you're saying it's much less than a lifetime. The above poster was implying that 5 years of slavery is very consequential compared to a a lifetime without slavery. He/she objected to the implication of word choice, you objected to the implication that the word choice was inaccurate.
> Well let's put it this way, on a scale of 0 to 100, how much do you care about what I think of you? Now why would you expect it to be any different for me?
What is the point of defending free speech if you don't care how your words are taken? On scale of 0 to 100, if a total stranger pointed out that my words promote racism, my concern is much closer to 100 than not. Is it different for you?
In summary:
1) Author said "just 5 years" of slavery
2) A poster expressed disagreement with the implication that 5 years of slavery should be dismissed as not a big deal, obviously comparing it to not being a slave ever
3) You expressed disagreement with the idea that the victims wouldn't have been slaves of some sort anyway, and thus the author's language was accurate. You also brought up that slavery exists in Africa today.
4) I expressed that your choice to bring up that second point promotes the feeling that because slavery happens we should not be upset by it
5) You defended your choice because facts are involved and because free speech is important
This is not an issue of if facts are valid - MANY facts are valid but not relevant to the topic at hand. This is not an issue of free speech - both sides are arguing over what language was appropriate, and I have no objection to discussing modern slavery when we're discussing modern slavery.
This is an issue that you made a choice to bring up certain facts _outside the topic_ and I questioned the purpose of doing so. The negative results from your actions come not from knowing any particular facts, but from attaching those facts-outside-the-topic to the topic, which is very misleading.