Thanks for the link. I've followed it through to BC. In doing so I found some really nice posts unrelated to this but they're worth re-reading:
People can say whatever they want and I know I certainly have said things in the past that later I don't agree with anymore. I saw his posts and have even challenged him on some of the rapey statements. But he has also made statements that actually make sense either taken in abstraction or even in the context he provides.
The mistake that is being made against us is that because many already have a pre-formed opinion about us based on what they think we "are", they exclude us from the conversation and reinforce each other's idea that we are bad and so even if we say something tiny that makes sense many just ignore it because they think we are bad because we have said really bad things before, and so according to that procedure once a person is bad they're bad forever. Of course that is not productive and so it would be more useful to speak to his less extreme statements. If the group integrates its darker parts just like individuals do, it would gain power with which to achieve its common goals.
I can still disagree with him on anything he says in isolation or in relation to anything he has previously said and thus challenge him to explain himself. That is part of good communication. I would even do that with Adolf Hitler. You know you can abstract the bad away, right?
What if some people just need to say certain words in certain orders for their mind to come to terms with itself?