He appears to be throwing the racially-charged language back at the troll and criticising them for being so disrespectful. From his mocking tone, I did not get the impression that he condoned their prejudice.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74llFWdeKNM&feature=youtu.be...
He seems to be using the N word specifically as a pejorative because they're annoying him. (And then uses "faggot" also as a pejorative because why not?)
"White people are meant to be polite and respect each other", combined with the use of the N word towards the commentators, is fairly racially charged, no?
Sargon said something like he was denigrating the 'alt right / nazi trolls' for behaving the way the 'nazis' claim the people they hate behave in.
Well, of course he does. He'd be stupid not to. But it's very easy to say "ONLY JOKING" whenever you get called on your offensive bullshit that you originally intended.
Of course we do. Subtext, hidden meanings, coded language, dogwhistling, etc. are all valid things that people can discern in others' speech.
Let's assume for a moment that the target of these pejoratives was an alt-right troll who directed those exact slurs at Sargon of Akkad. Let's say they made it obvious they were homophobic white supremacists by attacking Sargon's mixed heritage as 'racial impurity'.
When I steelman Sargon's emotional response, what I get is: "don't you alt-right trolls realise that you behave exactly the same way as you claim the [nasty black people] do? You are not living up to the false standard you have set for the polite and respectful white 'master' race, so your claim to superiority amazes me. If you are going to behave like the [nasty black people] and [nasty gay people] you despise so much, then don't expect me to bother wasting my time debating you."
Do you find this interpretation implausible for some reason? Can anyone offer a better one?
Do we know that it was?
> Do you find this interpretation implausible for some reason?
I do but that's because, taking all the interactions I've had with his output into account, I'm not given to charitable interpretations of his intentions.
> Can anyone offer a better one?
Yes, he's happy to use casual racism and homophobia until someone calls him out on it then he backtracks to claim it's satirical. But what you really mean here is "can anyone offer a better one that I agree with" and I suspect the answer there is no.
> he's happy to use casual racism and homophobia until someone calls him out on it
I don't listen to this fellow often because I find the sound of his voice irritating and I don't like how he cherry-picks evidence to support his views on UK politics. But none of the limited output I have consumed contained any casual racism. Can anyone link to any other examples that demonstrate this?