(05-20-2021 05:46 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 04:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 04:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 04:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Point remains that this is a bad comparison - tons of evidence of non-vaccinated people breaking masking rules, not tons of evidence of voter fraud related to a lack of ID requirements.

We have ways to gather evidence of non-vaccinated people breaking masking rules, but no way to gather evidence of voter fraud due to lack of iD requirements.

My doctor asked for a copy of my vaccination record. It has my name and the dates of my vaccination. Was this racist?

It interesting that both the extreme left and OO have (in their own ways) completely expanded the definition of the term "racist" from what is generally accepted as common use.

(05-20-2021 05:58 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 05:46 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 04:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 04:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 04:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Point remains that this is a bad comparison - tons of evidence of non-vaccinated people breaking masking rules, not tons of evidence of voter fraud related to a lack of ID requirements.

We have ways to gather evidence of non-vaccinated people breaking masking rules, but no way to gather evidence of voter fraud due to lack of iD requirements.

My doctor asked for a copy of my vaccination record. It has my name and the dates of my vaccination. Was this racist?

It interesting that both the extreme left and OO have (in their own ways) completely expanded the definition of the term "racist" from what is generally accepted as common use.

I guess you are still clueless as to the noted definitions -- especially as to non-human items.

Caterwaul to the editors publishers of the dictionaries. I am sure that they will listen attentively to a an ex-male model as an expert in the field.

I find it utterly amazing the power of progressives to be ignorant as to the idea of a dictionary and of a dictionary definition -- especially as that power seems selectively enabled depending on the stance they take.

Context, just write it off to context. Anything and everything, by god, its context!!!

(05-20-2021 06:07 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 05:58 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 05:46 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 04:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 04:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  We have ways to gather evidence of non-vaccinated people breaking masking rules, but no way to gather evidence of voter fraud due to lack of iD requirements.

My doctor asked for a copy of my vaccination record. It has my name and the dates of my vaccination. Was this racist?

It interesting that both the extreme left and OO have (in their own ways) completely expanded the definition of the term "racist" from what is generally accepted as common use.

I guess you are still clueless as to the noted definitions -- especially as to non-human items.

Caterwaul to the editors publishers of the dictionaries. I am sure that they will listen attentively to a an ex-male model as an expert in the field.

I find it utterly amazing the power of progressives to be ignorant as to the idea of a dictionary and of a dictionary definition -- especially as that power seems selectively enabled depending on the stance they take.

Context, just write it off to context. Anything and everything, by god, its context!!!

Baffling that you get so worked up about this. Did you see the part about "common use"? That should signal to you that I acknowledge the existence of various less-commonly used definitions.

Do you disagree that OO has recently employed a definition of "racist" that is not commonly used?

(05-20-2021 06:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 06:07 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 05:58 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 05:46 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 04:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  My doctor asked for a copy of my vaccination record. It has my name and the dates of my vaccination. Was this racist?

It interesting that both the extreme left and OO have (in their own ways) completely expanded the definition of the term "racist" from what is generally accepted as common use.

I guess you are still clueless as to the noted definitions -- especially as to non-human items.

Caterwaul to the editors publishers of the dictionaries. I am sure that they will listen attentively to a an ex-male model as an expert in the field.

I find it utterly amazing the power of progressives to be ignorant as to the idea of a dictionary and of a dictionary definition -- especially as that power seems selectively enabled depending on the stance they take.

Context, just write it off to context. Anything and everything, by god, its context!!!

Baffling that you get so worked up about this. Did you see the part about "common use"? That should signal to you that I acknowledge the existence of various less-commonly used definitions.

Do you disagree that OO has recently employed a definition of "racist" that is not commonly used?

If it's in the dictionary it's common use!

(05-20-2021 06:07 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 05:58 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 05:46 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 04:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 04:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  We have ways to gather evidence of non-vaccinated people breaking masking rules, but no way to gather evidence of voter fraud due to lack of iD requirements.

My doctor asked for a copy of my vaccination record. It has my name and the dates of my vaccination. Was this racist?

It interesting that both the extreme left and OO have (in their own ways) completely expanded the definition of the term "racist" from what is generally accepted as common use.

I guess you are still clueless as to the noted definitions -- especially as to non-human items.

Caterwaul to the editors publishers of the dictionaries. I am sure that they will listen attentively to a an ex-male model as an expert in the field.

I find it utterly amazing the power of progressives to be ignorant as to the idea of a dictionary and of a dictionary definition -- especially as that power seems selectively enabled depending on the stance they take.

Context, just write it off to context. Anything and everything, by god, its context!!!

Baffling that you get so worked up about this. Did you see the part about "common use"? That should signal to you that I acknowledge the existence of various less-commonly used definitions.

(05-20-2021 06:52 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 06:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 06:07 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 05:58 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 05:46 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  It interesting that both the extreme left and OO have (in their own ways) completely expanded the definition of the term "racist" from what is generally accepted as common use.

I guess you are still clueless as to the noted definitions -- especially as to non-human items.

Caterwaul to the editors publishers of the dictionaries. I am sure that they will listen attentively to a an ex-male model as an expert in the field.

I find it utterly amazing the power of progressives to be ignorant as to the idea of a dictionary and of a dictionary definition -- especially as that power seems selectively enabled depending on the stance they take.

Context, just write it off to context. Anything and everything, by god, its context!!!

Baffling that you get so worked up about this. Did you see the part about "common use"? That should signal to you that I acknowledge the existence of various less-commonly used definitions.

Do you disagree that OO has recently employed a definition of "racist" that is not commonly used?

If it's in the dictionary it's common use!

Funny, you two have bitched previously about anything else 'in the real world' being merely an example, and not proof. And obstensibly insist on 'sources'.

Now when there is a source, and it goes against you, you two now ***** about that and point to what is used 'in the real world'. In fing amazing. What a duo of utter hypocrites. Good job there frick and frack.

Btw frack, that has been a usage in the dictionary for probably longer than you have been alive -- and longer than I have. i guess *now* it should be ignored.

Again, what an amazing display of sheer fing hypocrisy --- <slow clap>. I suggest you two try to be consistent for once.

But that's typical progressivism for you, when the rules espoused go against you, just move the goalposts! Brilliant display there you two, I couldnt have done better than that.

(05-20-2021 06:52 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 06:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 06:07 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 05:58 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 05:46 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  It interesting that both the extreme left and OO have (in their own ways) completely expanded the definition of the term "racist" from what is generally accepted as common use.

I guess you are still clueless as to the noted definitions -- especially as to non-human items.

Caterwaul to the editors publishers of the dictionaries. I am sure that they will listen attentively to a an ex-male model as an expert in the field.

I find it utterly amazing the power of progressives to be ignorant as to the idea of a dictionary and of a dictionary definition -- especially as that power seems selectively enabled depending on the stance they take.

Context, just write it off to context. Anything and everything, by god, its context!!!

Baffling that you get so worked up about this. Did you see the part about "common use"? That should signal to you that I acknowledge the existence of various less-commonly used definitions.

Do you disagree that OO has recently employed a definition of "racist" that is not commonly used?

If it's in the dictionary it's common use!

Funny, you two have bitched previously about anything else 'in the real world' being merely an example, and not proof. And obstensibly insist on 'sources'.

Now when there is a source, and it goes against you, you two now ***** about that and point to what is used 'in the real world'. In fing amazing. What a duo of utter hypocrites. Good job there frick and frack.

Btw frack, that has been a usage in the dictionary for probably longer than you have been alive -- and longer than I have. i guess *now* it should be ignored.

Again, what an amazing display of sheer fing hypocrisy --- <slow clap>. I suggest you two try to be consistent for once.

But that's typical progressivism for you, when the rules espoused go against you, just move the goalposts! Brilliant display there you two, I couldnt have done better than that.

(05-20-2021 07:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 06:52 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 06:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 06:07 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 05:58 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I guess you are still clueless as to the noted definitions -- especially as to non-human items.

Caterwaul to the editors publishers of the dictionaries. I am sure that they will listen attentively to a an ex-male model as an expert in the field.

I find it utterly amazing the power of progressives to be ignorant as to the idea of a dictionary and of a dictionary definition -- especially as that power seems selectively enabled depending on the stance they take.

Context, just write it off to context. Anything and everything, by god, its context!!!

Baffling that you get so worked up about this. Did you see the part about "common use"? That should signal to you that I acknowledge the existence of various less-commonly used definitions.

Do you disagree that OO has recently employed a definition of "racist" that is not commonly used?

If it's in the dictionary it's common use!

Funny, you two have bitched previously about anything else 'in the real world' being merely an example, and not proof. And obstensibly insist on 'sources'.

Now when there is a source, and it goes against you, you two now ***** about that and point to what is used 'in the real world'. In fing amazing. What a duo of utter hypocrites. Good job there frick and frack.

Btw frack, that has been a usage in the dictionary for probably longer than you have been alive -- and longer than I have. i guess *now* it should be ignored.

Again, what an amazing display of sheer fing hypocrisy --- <slow clap>. I suggest you two try to be consistent for once.

But that's typical progressivism for you, when the rules espoused go against you, just move the goalposts! Brilliant display there you two, I couldnt have done better than that.

Wait, if we're now going against our previous position and your opposing it, but you also opposed our previous position, doesn't that mean... no, no, no. No way that Tanq is potentially flip flopping too!

(05-20-2021 07:20 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 07:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 06:52 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 06:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 06:07 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Baffling that you get so worked up about this. Did you see the part about "common use"? That should signal to you that I acknowledge the existence of various less-commonly used definitions.

Do you disagree that OO has recently employed a definition of "racist" that is not commonly used?

If it's in the dictionary it's common use!

Funny, you two have bitched previously about anything else 'in the real world' being merely an example, and not proof. And obstensibly insist on 'sources'.

Now when there is a source, and it goes against you, you two now ***** about that and point to what is used 'in the real world'. In fing amazing. What a duo of utter hypocrites. Good job there frick and frack.

Btw frack, that has been a usage in the dictionary for probably longer than you have been alive -- and longer than I have. i guess *now* it should be ignored.

Again, what an amazing display of sheer fing hypocrisy --- <slow clap>. I suggest you two try to be consistent for once.

But that's typical progressivism for you, when the rules espoused go against you, just move the goalposts! Brilliant display there you two, I couldnt have done better than that.

Wait, if we're now going against our previous position and your opposing it, but you also opposed our previous position, doesn't that mean... no, no, no. No way that Tanq is potentially flip flopping too!

Just pointing out your rampant hypocrisy. Clear enough for you?

(05-20-2021 05:46 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 04:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 04:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 04:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Point remains that this is a bad comparison - tons of evidence of non-vaccinated people breaking masking rules, not tons of evidence of voter fraud related to a lack of ID requirements.

We have ways to gather evidence of non-vaccinated people breaking masking rules, but no way to gather evidence of voter fraud due to lack of iD requirements.

My doctor asked for a copy of my vaccination record. It has my name and the dates of my vaccination. Was this racist?

It interesting that both the extreme left and OO have (in their own ways) completely expanded the definition of the term "racist" from what is generally accepted as common use.

(05-20-2021 07:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 07:20 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 07:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 06:52 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 06:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  If it's in the dictionary it's common use!

Funny, you two have bitched previously about anything else 'in the real world' being merely an example, and not proof. And obstensibly insist on 'sources'.

Now when there is a source, and it goes against you, you two now ***** about that and point to what is used 'in the real world'. In fing amazing. What a duo of utter hypocrites. Good job there frick and frack.

Btw frack, that has been a usage in the dictionary for probably longer than you have been alive -- and longer than I have. i guess *now* it should be ignored.

Again, what an amazing display of sheer fing hypocrisy --- <slow clap>. I suggest you two try to be consistent for once.

But that's typical progressivism for you, when the rules espoused go against you, just move the goalposts! Brilliant display there you two, I couldnt have done better than that.

Wait, if we're now going against our previous position and your opposing it, but you also opposed our previous position, doesn't that mean... no, no, no. No way that Tanq is potentially flip flopping too!

Just pointing out your rampant hypocrisy. Clear enough for you?

Right back at ya, partner!

(05-20-2021 08:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 05:46 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 04:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 04:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 04:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Point remains that this is a bad comparison - tons of evidence of non-vaccinated people breaking masking rules, not tons of evidence of voter fraud related to a lack of ID requirements.

We have ways to gather evidence of non-vaccinated people breaking masking rules, but no way to gather evidence of voter fraud due to lack of iD requirements.

My doctor asked for a copy of my vaccination record. It has my name and the dates of my vaccination. Was this racist?

It interesting that both the extreme left and OO have (in their own ways) completely expanded the definition of the term "racist" from what is generally accepted as common use.

Mine is a general one, applicable to all races, ethnic groups, and situations, not specific to any race's history or to any time period.

(05-20-2021 08:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 07:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 07:20 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 07:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 06:52 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Funny, you two have bitched previously about anything else 'in the real world' being merely an example, and not proof. And obstensibly insist on 'sources'.

Now when there is a source, and it goes against you, you two now ***** about that and point to what is used 'in the real world'. In fing amazing. What a duo of utter hypocrites. Good job there frick and frack.

Btw frack, that has been a usage in the dictionary for probably longer than you have been alive -- and longer than I have. i guess *now* it should be ignored.

Again, what an amazing display of sheer fing hypocrisy --- <slow clap>. I suggest you two try to be consistent for once.

But that's typical progressivism for you, when the rules espoused go against you, just move the goalposts! Brilliant display there you two, I couldnt have done better than that.

Wait, if we're now going against our previous position and your opposing it, but you also opposed our previous position, doesn't that mean... no, no, no. No way that Tanq is potentially flip flopping too!

Just pointing out your rampant hypocrisy. Clear enough for you?

Right back at ya, partner!

Rampant hypocrisy by pointing out rampant hypocrisy. Got it. Makes sense to me. (twirl fingers around earlobe).

Your position is that you dont give a flying flip if it is in the dictionary in the 'soft sense'. On multiple occasions, mind you.

93 has stated that OO has 'expanded' the definition from 'common usage'. Then retreats and says he whole heartedly understands that an alternative is 'in the dictionary' --- yet he claims that OO expanded it by merely using it.

I pointed out that mild point of moving goalposts.

Then you chirp in with a non-sequitor.

You two hinge everything you have on 'common use' and an exclusive definition, to the exclusion of explicit alternatives, to the word 'racist'. That is, writing one definition out by 'common use'.

I point out how you in particular in time past have complained about items that have, as their basis, common use or common knowledge as the foundation. Now, when it suits you, you studiously promote 'common use' above even a primary source.

Unbelievably hypocritical. Context dependent yardsticks. Good job there.

If you had bothered to read, I dont make a comment one way or the other on which yardstick -- I am pointing out *your* varying 'rules of lad-world'.

One day no 'common use or common knowledge' (when it suits you), and another nothing but "common use or common knowledge" (when it suits you). On the latter you take the further step of even studiously ignoring a primary source or two on it.

Now apparently I am hypocritical for.... something. Beats the fk out of me since all I did was point out your widely varying yardsticks.

I mean, all I did was subscribe to *your* mantra of 'primary sources', which, actually has value. But you have the innate ability to make one feel like they are talking with a vat of talking point jello -- so this turn really doesnt surprise me to any great extent.

(05-20-2021 08:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 07:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 07:20 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 07:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 06:52 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Funny, you two have bitched previously about anything else 'in the real world' being merely an example, and not proof. And obstensibly insist on 'sources'.

Now when there is a source, and it goes against you, you two now ***** about that and point to what is used 'in the real world'. In fing amazing. What a duo of utter hypocrites. Good job there frick and frack.

Btw frack, that has been a usage in the dictionary for probably longer than you have been alive -- and longer than I have. i guess *now* it should be ignored.

Again, what an amazing display of sheer fing hypocrisy --- <slow clap>. I suggest you two try to be consistent for once.

But that's typical progressivism for you, when the rules espoused go against you, just move the goalposts! Brilliant display there you two, I couldnt have done better than that.

Wait, if we're now going against our previous position and your opposing it, but you also opposed our previous position, doesn't that mean... no, no, no. No way that Tanq is potentially flip flopping too!

Just pointing out your rampant hypocrisy. Clear enough for you?

Right back at ya, partner!

Rampant hypocrisy by pointing out rampant hypocrisy. Got it. Makes sense to me. (twirl fingers around earlobe).

Your position is that you dont give a flying flip if it is in the dictionary in the 'soft sense'. On multiple occasions, mind you.

93 has stated that OO has 'expanded' the definition from 'common usage'. Then retreats and says he whole heartedly understands that an alternative is 'in the dictionary' --- yet he claims that OO expanded it by merely using it.

I pointed out that mild point of moving goalposts.

Then you chirp in with a non-sequitor.

You two hinge everything you have on 'common use' and an exclusive definition, to the exclusion of explicit alternatives, to the word 'racist'. That is, writing one definition out by 'common use'.

I point out how you in particular in time past have complained about items that have, as their basis, common use or common knowledge as the foundation. Now, when it suits you, you studiously promote 'common use' above even a primary source.

Unbelievably hypocritical. Context dependent yardsticks. Good job there.

If you had bothered to read, I dont make a comment one way or the other on which yardstick -- I am pointing out *your* varying 'rules of lad-world'.

One day no 'common use or common knowledge' (when it suits you), and another nothing but "common use or common knowledge" (when it suits you). On the latter you take the further step of even studiously ignoring a primary source or two on it.

Now apparently I am hypocritical for.... something. Beats the fk out of me since all I did was point out your widely varying yardsticks.

I mean, all I did was subscribe to *your* mantra of 'primary sources', which, actually has value. But you have the innate ability to make one feel like they are talking with a vat of talking point jello -- so this turn really doesnt surprise me to any great extent.

(05-20-2021 09:42 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 08:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 07:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 07:20 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 07:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Wait, if we're now going against our previous position and your opposing it, but you also opposed our previous position, doesn't that mean... no, no, no. No way that Tanq is potentially flip flopping too!

Just pointing out your rampant hypocrisy. Clear enough for you?

Right back at ya, partner!

Rampant hypocrisy by pointing out rampant hypocrisy. Got it. Makes sense to me. (twirl fingers around earlobe).

Your position is that you dont give a flying flip if it is in the dictionary in the 'soft sense'. On multiple occasions, mind you.

93 has stated that OO has 'expanded' the definition from 'common usage'. Then retreats and says he whole heartedly understands that an alternative is 'in the dictionary' --- yet he claims that OO expanded it by merely using it.

I pointed out that mild point of moving goalposts.

Then you chirp in with a non-sequitor.

You two hinge everything you have on 'common use' and an exclusive definition, to the exclusion of explicit alternatives, to the word 'racist'. That is, writing one definition out by 'common use'.

I point out how you in particular in time past have complained about items that have, as their basis, common use or common knowledge as the foundation. Now, when it suits you, you studiously promote 'common use' above even a primary source.

Unbelievably hypocritical. Context dependent yardsticks. Good job there.

If you had bothered to read, I dont make a comment one way or the other on which yardstick -- I am pointing out *your* varying 'rules of lad-world'.

One day no 'common use or common knowledge' (when it suits you), and another nothing but "common use or common knowledge" (when it suits you). On the latter you take the further step of even studiously ignoring a primary source or two on it.

Now apparently I am hypocritical for.... something. Beats the fk out of me since all I did was point out your widely varying yardsticks.

I mean, all I did was subscribe to *your* mantra of 'primary sources', which, actually has value. But you have the innate ability to make one feel like they are talking with a vat of talking point jello -- so this turn really doesnt surprise me to any great extent.

We are honestly reaching Joe Biden levels of word salad.

(05-20-2021 09:42 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 08:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 07:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 07:20 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 07:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Wait, if we're now going against our previous position and your opposing it, but you also opposed our previous position, doesn't that mean... no, no, no. No way that Tanq is potentially flip flopping too!

Just pointing out your rampant hypocrisy. Clear enough for you?

Right back at ya, partner!

Rampant hypocrisy by pointing out rampant hypocrisy. Got it. Makes sense to me. (twirl fingers around earlobe).

Your position is that you dont give a flying flip if it is in the dictionary in the 'soft sense'. On multiple occasions, mind you.

93 has stated that OO has 'expanded' the definition from 'common usage'. Then retreats and says he whole heartedly understands that an alternative is 'in the dictionary' --- yet he claims that OO expanded it by merely using it.

I pointed out that mild point of moving goalposts.

Then you chirp in with a non-sequitor.

You two hinge everything you have on 'common use' and an exclusive definition, to the exclusion of explicit alternatives, to the word 'racist'. That is, writing one definition out by 'common use'.

I point out how you in particular in time past have complained about items that have, as their basis, common use or common knowledge as the foundation. Now, when it suits you, you studiously promote 'common use' above even a primary source.

Unbelievably hypocritical. Context dependent yardsticks. Good job there.

If you had bothered to read, I dont make a comment one way or the other on which yardstick -- I am pointing out *your* varying 'rules of lad-world'.

One day no 'common use or common knowledge' (when it suits you), and another nothing but "common use or common knowledge" (when it suits you). On the latter you take the further step of even studiously ignoring a primary source or two on it.

Now apparently I am hypocritical for.... something. Beats the fk out of me since all I did was point out your widely varying yardsticks.

I mean, all I did was subscribe to *your* mantra of 'primary sources', which, actually has value. But you have the innate ability to make one feel like they are talking with a vat of talking point jello -- so this turn really doesnt surprise me to any great extent.

We are honestly reaching Joe Biden levels of word salad.

(05-20-2021 09:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 09:42 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 08:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 07:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 07:20 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Just pointing out your rampant hypocrisy. Clear enough for you?

Right back at ya, partner!

Rampant hypocrisy by pointing out rampant hypocrisy. Got it. Makes sense to me. (twirl fingers around earlobe).

Your position is that you dont give a flying flip if it is in the dictionary in the 'soft sense'. On multiple occasions, mind you.

93 has stated that OO has 'expanded' the definition from 'common usage'. Then retreats and says he whole heartedly understands that an alternative is 'in the dictionary' --- yet he claims that OO expanded it by merely using it.

I pointed out that mild point of moving goalposts.

Then you chirp in with a non-sequitor.

You two hinge everything you have on 'common use' and an exclusive definition, to the exclusion of explicit alternatives, to the word 'racist'. That is, writing one definition out by 'common use'.

I point out how you in particular in time past have complained about items that have, as their basis, common use or common knowledge as the foundation. Now, when it suits you, you studiously promote 'common use' above even a primary source.

Unbelievably hypocritical. Context dependent yardsticks. Good job there.

If you had bothered to read, I dont make a comment one way or the other on which yardstick -- I am pointing out *your* varying 'rules of lad-world'.

One day no 'common use or common knowledge' (when it suits you), and another nothing but "common use or common knowledge" (when it suits you). On the latter you take the further step of even studiously ignoring a primary source or two on it.

Now apparently I am hypocritical for.... something. Beats the fk out of me since all I did was point out your widely varying yardsticks.

I mean, all I did was subscribe to *your* mantra of 'primary sources', which, actually has value. But you have the innate ability to make one feel like they are talking with a vat of talking point jello -- so this turn really doesnt surprise me to any great extent.

We are honestly reaching Joe Biden levels of word salad.

Word JELLO salad.

wiggle, wiggle, wiggle

(05-21-2021 12:47 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 09:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 09:42 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 08:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 07:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Right back at ya, partner!

Rampant hypocrisy by pointing out rampant hypocrisy. Got it. Makes sense to me. (twirl fingers around earlobe).

Your position is that you dont give a flying flip if it is in the dictionary in the 'soft sense'. On multiple occasions, mind you.

93 has stated that OO has 'expanded' the definition from 'common usage'. Then retreats and says he whole heartedly understands that an alternative is 'in the dictionary' --- yet he claims that OO expanded it by merely using it.

I pointed out that mild point of moving goalposts.

Then you chirp in with a non-sequitor.

You two hinge everything you have on 'common use' and an exclusive definition, to the exclusion of explicit alternatives, to the word 'racist'. That is, writing one definition out by 'common use'.

I point out how you in particular in time past have complained about items that have, as their basis, common use or common knowledge as the foundation. Now, when it suits you, you studiously promote 'common use' above even a primary source.

Unbelievably hypocritical. Context dependent yardsticks. Good job there.

If you had bothered to read, I dont make a comment one way or the other on which yardstick -- I am pointing out *your* varying 'rules of lad-world'.

One day no 'common use or common knowledge' (when it suits you), and another nothing but "common use or common knowledge" (when it suits you). On the latter you take the further step of even studiously ignoring a primary source or two on it.

Now apparently I am hypocritical for.... something. Beats the fk out of me since all I did was point out your widely varying yardsticks.

I mean, all I did was subscribe to *your* mantra of 'primary sources', which, actually has value. But you have the innate ability to make one feel like they are talking with a vat of talking point jello -- so this turn really doesnt surprise me to any great extent.

We are honestly reaching Joe Biden levels of word salad.

Word JELLO salad.

wiggle, wiggle, wiggle

Perhaps you should try an actual, on point response. Or not. Free country and all that jazz. I see you prefer to go puerile along with your bud. Sounds fun.

(05-20-2021 05:46 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  It interesting that both the extreme left and OO have (in their own ways) completely expanded the definition of the term "racist" from what is generally accepted as common use.

(05-21-2021 10:16 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 05:46 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  It interesting that both the extreme left and OO have (in their own ways) completely expanded the definition of the term "racist" from what is generally accepted as common use.

Maybe one is a reaction to the other?? Sort of an 'if you can't beat them, join them'.

Quote:If any time a black person is shot by a white cop, it is because of prejudice and never for any other reason (the left's position).... that opens the door for racism to include any use of race as a primary determinant of outcomes.

Quote:I note that numerous definition 1's of the term 'racist' include the caveat 'typically one that is a minority or marginalized', which by definition means that it does not exclude its use against a majority or a non-marginalized community... it is just less common.

Things like quotas undeniably seek to make it 'more' common.

What I don't understand is why a group of people who have been marginalized for a very long time would be okay with marginalizing others, other than as a punishment/retribution.

I have a disability that requires me to use a service animal when I travel. I was at a hotel and came down for the continental breakfast. An employee told me that I couldn't sit in a certain area, but instead I had to sit in a different area because of my clearly identified and perfectly groomed and mannered service animal.... He took me from an area of low seating to one of high seating... where I couldn't reach my animal.... where he would struggle to recognize changes in my chemistry. Had I been in a wheelchair or been blind, I couldn't have reached the table nor my animal's harness. How is that any different from making people of 'a color' sit at certain seats and not be allowed to sit anywhere else?? The ADA prohibits what he did... but he did it anyway and I decided not to literally make a federal case of it. I have also been denied entry to a restaurant... also a clear and basic violation. In both instances, it was a member of a historically marginalized community that did it. I am fortunate that my disability is not 24/7 like being blind, but it is still a recognized and protected disability. Obviously there are at least a few people (in positions of some authority) who don't understand what it means to discriminate, unless it is against them.