OK

Says who? If you don't know the correct definition of racist how do you know the above is true?

Maybe your interpretation of [I]use[/I ] is too narrow?

Let's see:


That does not seem to be synonym with "define":


So, it seems you've conflated use and define.


As I've showed tomdemine,

You and Trolly have used racism, to define someone, or their statements as racist. For instance, I've seen you use racist to describe someone who supports immigration restriction, with no other context from the person. Support for a particular policy can be racist, but necessarily. You use it to paint other people.

Supporting a particular immigration policy can have nothing to do with race. Using "racist" to define someone as racist, becasue they support that particular immigration policy is a misuse of the term, irrelevant of any definition that would reasonably resemble racism.

this is hilarious

identitarians identify categories and oppression narratives. The intersectional wizards came up with the brain buster that you can fit in to multiple boxes. It's intellectual catnip for activists

itshotinvegas came up with a name ("with a little bit of fun") that recognizes the list of categories and dimensions of oppression is growing... of course. Like we didn't forget that LGBT became LGBTQAIIP two spirit. Of course it did, that's the game. Create categories and oppression narratives.

I, I guess I'm not sure what I expected, but I guess backflips about how using a definition and using a word to define are totally different things should have been it.

What is the immigration restriction in question?

hmm ok but the technique of pretending that if someone mocks trolley/etc they are mocking some issue or people being discussed is then a common big fat lie.

as is the technique of pretending jokes are serious.

etc

See, how am I'm not supposed to see you as dishonest? You feign ignorance when it comes to understanding what an association fallacy is, and that reasonable definitions everyone can agree on, can be used in an incorrect way to define someone, or something.

Your entire point was to manipulate the meaning of "use" to attack my definition of racism, but in reality you know damn well, even if I accepted your honest definition of racism, my point would still hold.

In the context of this forum, there is a long history of discussing immigration policy. The results of those discussions were almost always that people’s support for immigration reforms are rooted in some kind of racial or ethic fears or other bias. These days people skip a lot of steps in the process and land on the conclusion of racism. I don’t think this approach is right, even though it is annoying and tedious to draw out people’s reasoning, but that’s the way people are.

Yeah, I know (not that I agree with that it is almost always, but I'm not going to argue that point). That's why I said we have to put up with it.

False.

This by the way isn't even addressing your assumed premise that people on this forum just call anyone who is against open borders racist without question which is utterly ridiculous.

No, I honestly think you're talking in gibberish. Like, lets say it goes like this:

You: blah blah blah
Me: That's racist.
You: No it's not.
Me: Sure it is. Here's why. Blah blah blah blah.

Now, if you still disagree, the you trying to make a distinction between using the term "racist" wrongly to define blah blah blah and using the wrong definition of racism is nonsense.

You know, my mother was like you, and used to say stuff like this, among other things. I believed her for a little more than three decades. I encountered some hard times, and ended up getting some test done. This battery of test included cognitive and neurological functioning due to the belief that some things in my history may have caused some issues. The results of those test were interesting. I struggled on stuff like short-term memory (think like can't remember where the car keys are), but was I was exceptional at stuff like retracing my steps, which was is tied to something called contextual memory. Like, I'm really, really good at that, like with in the 5% highest of the people who took the test, which reached into hundreds of thousands of people.

The other thing I was even more exceptional at was, my comprehension, vocabulary and and the ability to correlate and associate ideas with precision. I was within the top 1% of the folks who took this test.

Basically, when it comes to understanding and interpreting complexities, nuances, and context, I am without a doubt, very good at it. With that said, not as good as articulating these things, but I'm not terrible either.

The moral of the story is, I stopped trusting my narcissistic mother when she said stuff like this, and I'm damn well not going to trust your interpretation. My conclusions may not always be right, but my interpretation of the information is almost always precise.

If you honestly think I'm talking in gibberish, you are either incompetent to be discussing things, or you are dishonest, or you have some serious cognitive, or behavior issues yourself. Personally, I think it's you gaslighting when confronted with the fact you were caught manipulating what I wrote.

Good to see you're in the criticising hyperbole camp.

I'm sure you don't support using of it but many do and presumably don't think it should be criticised

Hyperbole is ok but you have to use it sparingly and not so much as a weapon but as a rhetorical device--although the distinction there is what people have issues with.

I was being a bit tongue in check there. I'm sure tom get's my humour. Gotta have a bit of fun.

I can't summon up enough humour to tackle wookies language use posts. Some things transcend humour.

I think you nailed it actually.

TY

Hyperbole is 100% the worst thing ever in history. Anyone who uses it should be instantly killed.

Fair point but 110% of people use hyperbole so that would mean killing everybody including all 3 of the non-racists.

in before a hundred posts jaq-ing over tomdemaine's (dangerous?) rhetoric.

grunching