He didn't answer the question, he accused the OP of this post of racism. An attack is simply aggressive action against something. An accusation of racism is an accusation of malice towards other people. An accusation that is intrinsically aggressive. I think you are interpreting many things to fit your own viewpoint. This isn't a good frame of mind for discussion. Additionally, I find it amusing that you cited my argument against nitpicking specific wording, yet you did it anyway.
I'm aware that social science exists. This is not social science. We are not social scientists. This is a discussion between normal people, about issues plaguing our society. Issues which can best be helped by having a rational informed discussion, and attempting to learn more about each other and how our behavior affects one another. To this end, it is counterproductive to accuse the person trying to find out more about such issues and their potential role in them of racism. This shuts down the discussion and discourages OP and potentially others from trying to learn about the situation.
Questioning things is a fundamental part of human curiosity and learning, and it is a huge part of how we've advanced as a species and as a community. However, there is a fine line been investigating a hypothesis on human behavior through the scientific process and question-driven research, and questioning every single word of someone's questions or statement. Imagine you are a professor. During one of your lectures, a student expresses his innate curiosity by questioning literally everything you say. Because of him, the other students don't get to hear the entire lecture, and their learning is detracted from by the tedium of critically evaluating even the most mundane of your sentences. This is hardly productive, as itdirectly and significantly impacts the acquisition of knowledge by others. I'd warn you against making blanket statements about extremes, such as "It is ALWAYS productive to question something" (emphasis mine) because they are almost never 100% true without exceptions. One could spend all day questioning whether he truly has an ethical duty to do this job, but at the end of the day he still hasn't filled those damn expense reports and now he's getting fired and they're replacing him with an under-trained new guy and its all because he decided questioning things was always a good idea.
And finally, your assertion that I was attacking him for his response to the question is weak at best. Being an attack by definition necessitates aggression, which I did not employ, as evidenced by the fact that I simply questioned whether it was wise to argue with OPs use of language, and I explicitly said that I was"not trying to create hostility."