Describing reality v. attacking language

There is a flaw in the understanding of some of the people in this channel.
That misunderstanding is the difference between 'attacking people' and 'describing reality'. It's critical we address this.
Say I am in the middle of a conversation with Thacker- and he expresses that he's a white supremacist.
Seeing as all supremacy systems are dangerous and undesirable, I would say, "Hey, you just expressed white supremacy." This would be describing what he did in that moment.
I would hope people in this channel would have no issue with that -- for our words to have meaning, other people need to be able to understand them and then make decisions on what we've said.
After Thacker- expressed white supremacy in this hypothetical conversation, I would probably decide to not engage him further.
Some time passes. Trees grow. Baby birds leave home. I am now talking to Efrquake. He asks me, "Hey, do you chat with Thacker-?"
I respond with, "Oh, no, I do not -- he's a white supremacist."
This would be describing reality, as above, but now it is not contemporaneous -- it's describing an event that occurred in the past.
This is not an attack.
You cannot attack a person by describing what they are doing.
They are not at all related.
Can calling somebody a white supremacist ever be an attack? Of course.
When is calling somebody a white supremacist an attack? When it's not *true*.
So, if I call somebody a white supremacist, it is incorrect to say, "Stop attacking that person." Instead, ask, "Where is your evidence?"
At that point, I will then furnish the recording of the past event -- the logs -- for Thacker- expressing white supremacy.
When I do that, conclude, "Aww, I see, he is a white supremacist."
If I do not provide evidence, then say, "You must recant your claim."
If I do not recant my position, only *then* can you conclude I have attacked a person.