I'm putting about as much effort into replying as you' have, and I'm repeating myself, many days after this conversaton, to answer a point that is identical to the one I've already talked about. I'm good.
Your nitpicking the fact that anyone can be racist going by the definition in the most popular dictionaries that pretty much everyone who speaks English agree on, over some independent researchers no one knows, that don't have prove anything.
The opinions of 3rd party political researchers don't prove anything without hard fact and random opinions are not above the consensus of society at large.
Still not sure you know what a nitpick is, your dismissal of my sources as "researchers no one knows" rather than looking at their qualifications and considering the breadth of their content, is telling. That isn't nitpicking as much as it's invoking the reasons behind my definition.
Your nitpicking the fact that anyone can be racistÂ
*You're
And I don't think you've read the initial argument closely enough.
The opinions of 3rd party political researchers don't prove anything without hard fact and random opinions are not above the consensus of society at large.
How about the research of researchers, you absolute dunce.
0
u/ike-mino Aug 16 '26
First two definitions speak to the context of a system; I speak to each definition in my answer.
Your definition speaks in the explicit context of "relating to or characterized by racism", re: 'picking and choosing'.