I think his anger wasn't spawned by the race but rather the language of the filmer who intentionally escalated matters by continuously antagonizing the man he already upset. Too much freedom?
Yes! He was antagonized by the use of a language other than English, which is clearly a form of
white genocide!!!!!!!!!11!!!11!!1!1!111111 [/conservolibertarian]
That wasn't the antagonism. The antagonism came later.
If I throw a fit because your hair is blue, I'm not being racist, and if my calling you out on your hair color offends you (as it just might), then you talking to me about what upsets you isn't antagonism, but being relentless about it is.
If I throw a fit because the person I'm having to stand behind is black (and am disgusted by the blacks not letting me go first like white people should), then I am being racist, and if that upsets a black man and decides to call me out on my problem, then that is not being antagonistic unless he keeps on and on and on about it.
If I do not like people speaking another language around me, then personally, I'm not going to say anything because I consider it a failure of mine if I don't comprehend the language, but if someone else like the wheel chair person speaks only about the language and not the race, then it's a stretch to say racism is at the heart of the problem.
It's a convenience to the claim of racism that there's a connection between race and language. Such a convenience isn't present in the blue hair example. If I hate a hair style that so happens to be prevelant among blacks, I find the claim of racism just something to latch onto to garner more support against my intolerant ways.
