The ridiculous part was picking one word out of a very thoughtful post (and one written as a first person account, not conjecture) and attacking that rather than the overall point. The first time I read his story I didn't even notice that he had mentioned racism in it, it was largely immaterial.
But quoting only that part makes it sound like he is blaming racism as the cause for poverty, which he clearly isn't.
If I had a penny for every time I heard something to the effect of 'if only poor people stopped complaining/blaming racism and started pulling themselves out of poverty, there would be no more poverty', I'd have enough to help people get out of poverty.
Although I guess there is no point in arguing with throw-away accounts.
It's as ridiculous as if he had casually tossed "overeating" into that list as well. Of course when something sticks out like a sore thumb, that individual part will get attention. Your point is that you can only reply holistically or something?
You're coming off as very confrontational. That's never a good sign. This would be a great time to stop, take a breather, and come back to the conversation with a fresh perspective. Otherwise you risk being downvoted into oblivion due to the tone you're taking.
You can reply any way you want, but it makes a whole lot more sense to respond to the main point of the parent comment.
If the word racism had not been in that post, would you have commented on it at all? Would you have still felt the need to make a throw-away account for the comment?
But quoting only that part makes it sound like he is blaming racism as the cause for poverty, which he clearly isn't.
If I had a penny for every time I heard something to the effect of 'if only poor people stopped complaining/blaming racism and started pulling themselves out of poverty, there would be no more poverty', I'd have enough to help people get out of poverty.
Although I guess there is no point in arguing with throw-away accounts.