It both tickles and infuriates me that you feel the need to degenerate into a generic "angry old man" rant in order to protest something you disagree with. You can't just be angry that you got asked to consider for a split second what your words mean before you say them, you have to remind us that you also disapprove of gender identity and racial identity politics as well. It literally angers you more that someone pointed them out as existing and identified the problems with that, than that the thing they pointed out actually exists. Says a lot about you.
To answer your question: yes, you should consider what the implications of your statements are before you make them. Who you are and what you're talking about dictates in large part what the words you're saying mean. It's called context. In this case, I allege that Cutlass, who has demonstrated in the past the willingness to believe in the Western-created Oriental mythos of the Asian Hive Mind and Eastern Despotism, here manifests that racist perception in the idea that these lesser-developed peoples could never EVER [his words are "not possible" as I quoted above] accomplish something that we advanced Westerners haven't already. We're the best and most advanced, you know, we're constantly at the front of human civilization, accomplishing all possible things as soon as they become technically feasible.
Don't get mad at me for pointing it out: he said it, not me.
And since you're so worried about what your white American cishet opinion means: yes, it does identify you as a greatly privileged person to be able to be so wholly ignorant of how words and actions hurt other people and perpetuate their oppression. There's nothing that hurts white straight American mens' feelings, because they run the world. Except being compared with someone who is not a white straight American male: gay, girly, thuggish (today's code word for Black) or ghetto, or "un-uhMERRikin."
