LogFAQs > #891169499

Well the main difference is I'm not really targeting you as much as your field at this point. You've basically established an internally consistent definition of words-- but most people aren't doubting that you're being internally consistent. They're doubting whether the words you're using are the ones you should be using, and whether the words make sense to be used at this point.

Like maybe you didn't shift the goalposts but at some point they were shifted-- presumably because the field got a bit less American-history centric and people realized "this isn't as much about skin color as we thought" but still couldn't swallow their pride and stop using the terms white, black, and racism for concepts they'd been mistakenly been attributing to skin color.

Again that's all just theory-- I don't really have any idea of how using the words racism, black, and white developed there, but the core of the argument has always been "this is asinine" and you saying "it's not asinine because that's how academia talks" which isn't really a counter-argument for anyone, and which naturally transitions me into the viewpoint of "academia as it relates to this particular topic is asinine"
---

No problem!
This is a cute and pop genocide of love!