Yeah, I know. MrWookie has used it correctly, and incorrectly, irrespective of what definition we use. The ambiguity he is relying on is, he assumes I was saying MrWookie always uses it incorrectly.

No.

Also no.

You're relying on this 'objective' thing and I don't really know what you mean.

I don't think his objection has anything to do with 'always' but because wookie refuses to distinguish between 'being racist' and 'pandering to racists' you are going to come to your conclusion if you think it's much better to use different descriptions for different things. It's a very valid point imo but I don't know if that's what you mean.

This entire derail was because I ambiguously used intersectionality. That led to Trolly wanting people to be precise in its usage. I quickly pointed out racism was used ambiguously as well.

MrWookie's hijack was, and always will be, predicated on a manipulation.

So it's just 'no, you're the puppet' all the way down. Incredible.

I see your problem. I'd suggest not taking seriously those who's primary purpose is to dunk.

Yes, you thought you had a sweet ass sick ass gotcha but it immediately backfired in the most amazing way possible. And now the power of christ couldn't compel you to simply say "oops, my bad, I misspoke."

We're not talking about racism, we're talking about the bigness of tigers.

If you think so, most objective people don't reach your conclusion.

No

well you might be but we're not.

Do you notice these folks demand the up most precison, but can't be bothered to use gibberish correctly?

Neither one of you read that entire post and that's disappointing.

I appreciate the effort, I really do. I can certainly admit I'm not the best at articulating, and I could be more clear, even with the back and forth with MrWookie, you win on that point. If you honestly think MrWookie's goal was for me to be more specific/accurate, you got that part wrong, and the discourse with MrWookie over the last several hours demonstrated that. I was not being logically incoherent, nor was I using gibberish. That imprecision, while bashing me for being imprecise, and doubling down on his own imprecision (while gas lighting the **** out of me), should tell you something.

He still has not corrected himself and never elaborated on what he actually meant, which was:

I was being too ambiguous, imprecise in my argument, to the point he felt voided it.

I’m not sure why you accused them of applying the term incorrectly, then. But, whatever, this derail is obnoxious.

Because they do not use it correctly, every time, when they use it incorrectly, they base the usage on history of other people, not anything specific to the content they are calling racist at the time. You made this point yourself. It's an association fallacy.

For instance, people were calling me a white supremacist in the immigration thread, when I first showed up. I did not derail the discussion by asking for a definition, or claimed they were misusing the term, or demand precision. That would be weak, and an argument about semantics. I did elaborate to show my position was not based on race. They called me a white supremacist becasue people who support immigration restrictions can be white supremacist. That is using the term to commit an association fallacy, which is incorrect usage, since nothing in my post(s) explicitly pointed to race being a part of my reasoning. That's not to say the usage could eventually be proven to be correct.

This is all in the context of Trolly wanting me to be more precise with the term intersectionality, to which I made an association fallacy as well, to make a joke. I do not demand people to be precise in their usage of words, normally. But, it seems people demand I be precise in my usage of certain terms. The hijack was Mrwookie conflating definitions with usage, in order to try and score points, and other reasons. MrWookie conflates stuff all the time to create derision.

Why do you think asking for clarification about an accusation is weak?

MrWookie did not ask for clarification, he asked for a definition, to which I did not provide, becasue it was irrelevant. Usage vs definition. It was a conflation. To which I elaborated why it was a conflation.

Hol up, what? How you do think I misused the word "racist" in that hypothetical exchange?

But you just wrote this: I’m curious about why you think any of those things would be weak? I really don’t care about the pissing match MrW and everyone else wants to get in with you.

You indicated "blah blah blah" was gibberish. You drew a conclusion that "blah blah blah" was racist. You can not conclude "blah blah blah" is racist, that's impossible, you can't conclude anything about gibberish, other than it being gibberish.

Argumentum ad dictionarium

It's also a red herring in the context of this discussion.

It seems like you are misunderstanding what that wiki article is saying, and/or what I’m suggesting about asking for clarification. It is perfectly valid and useful to ask for clarification in situations like this, and Imo, not at all weak. For one thing, getting some oneto explain what they mean can actually help you understand their position better and help steer the conversation in a useful direction, also, it can help illustrate for anyone listening when a person might be using an uncommon definition or make a logical leap that is not well founded. I don’t think anyone here is using or doing what that article is taking about, but that’s obviously just my opinion.

That's why the usage vs definition conflation is important. As I just pointed out, the definition in MrWookie's usage of the term is irrelevant, for it to be incorrect, the same as using it in an association fallacy. I'm not saying it always weak to ask for clarification/definition, but in this case, it most certainly is a red herring, and an Argumentum ad dictionarium.

Same pattern here:

I can post endless examples of MrWookie doing this stuff. He got his answer, then he wants to move the goal post. Always asking questions based on his false premises, or his absurd/disjointed/manipulated interpretations, then gas lights the person as if they are the ones doing that, while demanding further clarifications. Rinse and repeat. Then folks come along and want you to placate him, and make an more an effort to be compliant with his request for clarifications.

I do not have a problem with almost any one else asking me to elaborate on stuff.