Just so we're clear, your complaint is that I'm talking about the thing I want to talk about, rather than me talking about the thing you want me to talk about? I'm not immediately seeing my obligation here.

I have multiple complaints! For one, you're a bully. For two, you're changing the subject when I point out your bullying. And now we can add three, you're changing the subject when I point out your changing the subject.

Are you trying to paint me as some kind of tyrant here? Who said anything about obligation? Feel free to ignore me, feel free to talk about whatever you like. Meanwhile, I will feel free to point out when I don't like the things you say.

Like so: it is a shitty tactic to pretend you're talking to me, to reply as though you have a reply to what I said, and thus to obscure the fact that you're presenting no defense for your actions.

I don't know if this is malice or incompetence on your part, but it's bullshit.

Dude, you replied to my comment. I am not "changing the subject". I was agreeing with CodeCube and extending his point. To the extent there is a subject here, it is covert and overt racists chafing that they can no longer be quite as racist as they are used to.

It's not my job to address whatever hobbyhorse you've ridden in on, one I still only find half comprehensible. HN discussion is a recreation for me, one I do on my terms. If you would like to make dealing with you my job, feel free to book me at my consulting rate, $300/hr, cash in advance. I have open slots starting in mid-January. Otherwise, please march back on out of my mentions. Thanks.

HN discussion is a public forum, and you don't get to dictate who replies to you. If you don't want to talk to me, that's up to you. You can simply stop talking to me. I'll get bored and wander off and you won't see me replying to you. If you don't understand what I'm saying, you can also choose to ask clarification. But I'm not asking any positive action of you.

What I do ask is that if you choose to reply to me, you reply to the things that I actually say. Instead, you repeatedly chose to say things which sounded like replies, but weren't. You tried to hide your lack-of-response - first, by talking about something unrelated to what I said, and second, by being all "I don't need to talk about what you want to talk about". Of course you don't! But if you're not going to talk about it, you don't get to pretend you replied to me.

I replied to the portion of your comment I thought relevant. Stomp your feet all you want, but I don't owe you anything further, and acting entitled to interaction on your terms doesn't incline me to take you seriously.

In civilized society, yes, people are entitled to be left alone when they ask to be left alone. I am not entitled to your general silence, but you are not entitled to keep bugging me. Please go away.

I consider that I'm entitled to keep talking to you, as long as you keep talking to me. It chafes to be told otherwise. On top of that, you're asking me to do something that you could have accomplished yourself, by simply not asking me to do it. That feels like some kind of bizarre power grab.

These things make me want to push back and do the opposite of what you want, just to annoy you.

However, very well: I will not reply to you again in this thread, even if you choose to reply to me.

I don't intend to deliberately avoid replying to you in future.

The difference being, of course, that you approached me. I believe I have the right to be let alone when asked. You believe that you have the right to approach anybody, petulantly insist that they talk about what you want, and then hang around bothering them after being asked to go away. Assertion of boundaries only seems like a bizarre power grab to the irrationally entitled.