3 ms·
> You're trying to make it sound abundantly reasonable that the OP's ideology is inconsistent No, I'm asserting that it's inconsistent (based on studying these
by weberc2 7y ago
> You're trying to make it sound abundantly reasonable that the OP's ideology is inconsistent
No, I'm asserting that it's inconsistent (based on studying these sorts of purportedly "egalitarian" racial/gender ideologies). Anyone is welcome to make a counterargument.
> lots of people would completely disagree with that
I know. And I find their justifications fascinating, as previously mentioned.
> then you're pretending like it's obvious and not up for debate.
In many ways it is obvious. "Racism isn't racism if it targets $RACE people" is one variation of a popular slogan. In any case, as mentioned several times now, my position is "yes, more debate", yours is "debate is pointless".
> More fanning the flames. Why?
I'm not "fanning flames", I'm inviting debate. And as previously mentioned, I find the debate interesting. Incidentally it also tends to publicize the inconsistencies in the ideology, which is a nice side effect.
- kljhsdfkhjdf 7y agoYou don't care about counter arguments because you're obviously unwilling to change your mind. It's obvious from comments like this: > these sorts of purportedly "egalitarian" racial/gender ideologies You wouldn't be framing an opposing viewpoint in an obviously negative light if you were genuinely interested in engaging with it. Furthermore, your comments are the standard laundry-list of SV libertarian complaints. There is nothing new, nothing substantial, and if you actually engaged with your opponents honestly, you would know that they address exactly the points you are trying to make. That means you're just fanning the flames. Stop being disingenuous and be honest with yourself.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]