UFC Fight Night: Strickland vs. Imavov

Mike's four hundreth post
feeling quite special
switch the U for an R
matrix says we're artistic
prophetic predictions mac mystic
Brittany Renner needs real mentors
Andrew Tate is Muhammad's splinter
cell
they want Mike compliant
on their carousel in hell
if lies could stink
something around here smells

* Edited at 01.02.2023, 4:38 PM ET *

@ baremaras  Being just a regular horse-browed, moth-eaten drooling intellectual cretin who pokes his dinner from an anthill with a chicken bone, I will do my level best to keep up with your obviously staggering powers of intellect, if I fail to do, so I apologise in advance. You accept that the definition you have provided is not immutable. That it is discursive--a construct. Therefore, it is not something that youmustbelieve, it is something youchooseto believe. It is therefore also true that I must not believe it, but may choose to. I do not choose to. The world is indeed full of belief systems that demand exclusive adherence and general intellectual fealty, regardless of how demented or insane they may be, whether they are ethical or make sense. There's one in particular, you may have heard of; Nazism. I reject this as I do your definition of racism, as is my right to do when shopping in the marketplace of ideas.

It is your contention that your definition of racism makes...debate, somehow a more congenial and streamlined and...lengthy, process? Exactly how it achieves this is not apparent to me.You have not provided a sufficient explanation. Regardless, I fundamentally disagree. In fact, it will always be counterintuitive to any form of debate purely as a process of information exclusion. If anything at all can be deemed racist, and anything that is deemed racist must be excluded as subject matter in any debate, then this inherently limits the type and availability of information exchange.

Could it be, perhaps, that your definition of racism is simply newspeak designed to insulate a particular type of belief system from a form of scrutiny that which subjected to it couldn't survive?

* Edited at 01.02.2023, 4:57 PM ET *

 baremarasyou said:

I said for PRACTICAL (you're giving me the theoretical side) reasons, racism lately has started being used as an umbrella term to include all the things I mentioned

But you have not broken downhowthis is practical. Or beneficial.You have simply meandered using abstract language to the effect that this is the case because it 'just is'. Debate is inherently impractical anyway. It is not like, say, freighting logistics, or fixing a leaking tap. When challenged, you simply revert to the same consensus fallacy that underpins your entire argument. It is known asArgumentum ad poplum.

* Edited at 01.02.2023, 5:06 PM ET *

@ baremaras no, because sexuality, like religion, is not a race. Anyone can be gay. Not just anyone can be African or Japanese. Entirely different subject(s). You might as well throw finger painting under the same umbrella as particle physics. It would make equal sense. Which is to say, absolutely none at all.