As I more or less figured, you really did understand most of what he posted and feigned ignorance to make a point.
The other day, you had some reply in which you argued that "white male tribalism is worse than 'African-American' tribalism," and argued that "white people" historically kept people from positions of power. Humorously, this was in a post in which you admonished Ned for making assertions about that treat Dems collectively rather than focusing on individuals. Then, to compound your errors, you make the leap from that to, therefore, "White Male tribalism is, in fact, worse than, say African American tribalism." That's a logical progression in your mind? (Tellingly, Chris that it was a fabulous post!) It was a logically incoherent reply and the argument failed on multiple levels.
Since you broached the subject of "begging the question," did "White Men" really oppress blacks? All of them? Most of them? 50% +1? You pick the criteria: how many white males at any point in time took actions to oppress other groups? You provide no examples. You provide no argument, just an assertion. A speculative, theoretical mind fart with no supporting evidence nor a logical argument whatsoever.
Now, why do I bring this up? Because when it came time to sound the right notes on racial oppression, you didn't require yourself to provide examples or provide a logical argument that validated your assertion Argument by assertion and speculation were fine. Now, when you disagree with what Curly writes, you ask him to provide examples, et cetera. Do as I say, not as I do, we're all equal here, but some are more equal than others, you get the point. Here's a novel concept: everyone else will let you speculate as to the causes of various social phenomena and you'll extend the same courtesy? Most of the time, other folks will take the time to provide an example to support an argument and on some occasions, even some data. Most of the time, you won't because you're pacing yourself in this life. No one except this grump will even call you on that. Deal?