I think only in the context of identity politics.

Those subtleties of messaging can certainly indicate affiliation.

But that's exactly what I'm saying. If that's become more important than the actual arguments, were headed down.

> Who said it and what views they hold is important for distinguishing between what they technically said and what they actually said.

Would you mind clarifying the difference between the two for me? It sounds an awful lot like we're talking about thought crimes.

(not the person you were replying to, but)

"What they technically said" are the words that were actually used. "What they actually said" are the likely intended meaning, since (as I'm sure you would agree) any given moderately-complex sentence could have a number of interpretations, especially in different contexts.

"We must protect our people" is a sentence of five simple words, but has a radically different meaning when spoken by: * A warlord invading another country * A fighter resisting an invasion * A doctor speaking about medical treatment

In this case, the OP is probably making the (reasonable) point that a speaker who has previously made overblown claims about the racial composition of a country, and has demonstrated xenophobia, can be reasonably assumed to also be on sketchy evidential grounds in his claims about political correctness

Proposing the idea that people do not always make arguments in good faith or say what they actually mean is "thought crime"?

In logic it is considered a logical fallacy to attack the speaker rather than the message.

It generally indicates that you don't have a rational refute to the argument.