Here's the quote I'm reacting negatively to:
Please point me to where you stated that others' opinions are welcome, as I only see you defending your own right to post your opinion. Please explain why asking another poster whether they are Native American is relevant if you aren't planning to value/devalue their opinion based on the answer.
This could have simply said "I'm just stating my personal feelings as someone who happens to be Native American. I understand that others may disagree." However, you chose not to word it that way. Rather than shouting "CONTEXT" and blaming other posters, please explain what you meant.
Right AFTER the part where you conveniently cut it off in your quote. " Just ignore the entire thread if you think I am not entitled, or others are not entitled, to their opinions.". Now did I specifically SAY other opinions are welcome? No. But if you use that logic, I never said they weren't either.
Explain why someone who isn't Native American would be offended by this logo. Why? I have no issue with someone stating that they want the logo gone because it MAY be offensive. But I DO have an issue with people saying it IS offensive, or being offended on BEHALF of someone else, or saying that I should be offended . Why?? How does it affect you in ANY way??
But my post, that seemed to offend YOU so much, was directed at someone who asked why we are debating if it is offensive. NOT whether it should be gone. Stating "it is offensive to Native Americans and should be removed" is OK with you? How do you know if it is or isn't unless Native Americans speak out? Stating it "MIGHT be offensive and should be removed" is different, isn't it? CONTEXT.
I have answered all your questions. Now answer all mine. If someone deliberately drives onto the sidewalk and kills a child, and if a tire accidentally blows out and I go on the sidewalk and kill a child, we both should be charged EXACTLY the same? Doesn't the MOTIVE behind it make a big difference? I stated VERY clearly, and again, something you conveniently ignored because of your "outrage" over my post, that the motive and/or context behind something is very important. And when that motive or the context isn't immediately clear AND indisputable, the person or persons it is directed at should have the most voice on the matter. Or do you disagree with that?