Can I expect you to repeatedly invoke the mighty sin word Fallacy if I was to engage in your loaf of spew?
You must know through 24 hr experience. I notice internet philosophers lose their logician status at the slightest straying off topic and can only hurl mild insults, instead of engaging in rhetoric that MIGHT bring the other towards agreement with their assertions.
“Play by my rules or I’ll throw the board game on the floor.” You should learn rhetoric in your box of tricks as you’ve been unimpressive as an intellect as of yet. But I’ll play your board game perhaps.
Ok: In English, there is such a thing as implied language. When you see the following:
“For example, by saying “women/POC can’t be sexist/racist” you are essentially saying they don’t even have the ability to be equal.”
– they are referring to systemic racism / systemic sexism.
The reason for this shorthand is the reason for any shorthand and I should not have to go over that.
Once you know they are referring to systemic issues, accept the implied understanding and move forward. Getting stuck at “this is not the definition in my dictionary” level stalls discourse.
You gave a long prescriptive post. I am giving my short prescription for you.
Listen when corrected.
Your post was too disjointed and all over the place. Perhaps there are dog whistles in there that I’m not hearing but a piece of logical writing, it was not.
If I shared your political stance, I’m sure it would all make perfect sense to me.
But from the start, your definitions and your entire discourse was like walking into a rant from a guy standing on a soapbox in the middle of a park.
The problem with the OP and those like you, in agreement and expanding, is that you’re trapped in a bubble of buzzwords and dog whistle talk that only is logical to those of your own political stance.
The dripping with sarcasm of this style of discourse is also what keeps you and yours in your bubble.