On one hand I think he knows exactly what he is doing. He mentions phrasing and word choice in some of his posts.
On the other hand, he might just be completely clueless about race and gender issues. He says things like "If women want to avoid catcalling then why don't they just move? I moved to improve my life."
Maybe a little of column A, and a little of column B.
>"If women want to avoid catcalling then why don't they just move? I moved to improve my life."
Perhaps pointing out the hypocrisy of those actually using that rhetorical construct? Being someone that advocates a society without a state, and often criticizes it, I get that comment thrown at me many times. And people find it a perfectly acceptable and valid retort to what I'm advocating. Maybe putting it in the context of "women" (with gender issues currently being a prominent theme/topic in society), perhaps he can make the users of that construct look at it critically as a bad argument against anything.
Note, haven't actually read Adam's articles about women being mentioned here.
On the other hand, he might just be completely clueless about race and gender issues. He says things like "If women want to avoid catcalling then why don't they just move? I moved to improve my life."
Maybe a little of column A, and a little of column B.