I would be inclined to agree with you. Yes, my post was reactionary, but I don't really feel like expending much effort on an article that calls Jeff Atwood a white supremacist. Sometimes my patience runs thin.

Of course, that's just a footnote. But they're calling forth a long tradition of an entire academic field, 'postcolonialism,'[1] which specifically discusses things like how currency, culture, and language were used by colonialist powers in order to subjugate native peoples in their colonies.

I will agree that they didn't provide very much argument there, and I'm not willing to say anything about Jeff's character, but demanding that people only speak English has a history.

I think a flag would have supported your point better than a comment that simply decreases the level of discourse here.

1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postcolonial_literature

What's particularly funny about the Atwood example is that it's used in an article complaining about heterosexual (among other adjectives) men. I'm about 75% sure I remember Atwood writing about having a boyfriend.

Technically, your post is probably only DH2.

Yup! The problem is, without a more substantial statement, it's very hard to actually refute, because there's basically nothing there. This is why discussions don't work very well when they aren't far up the hierarchy.