Nomad
Every trumper is a N4T.
Hmm, given the purposely revisionist and dodgy basis for your screed, I'll have to deconstruct it piece by piece so the reading audience can see your folly in no uncertain terms.
Your 1st paragraph: in trying to sound intelligent, you essentially demonstrate your inability (or unwillingness) to apply the basic reading comprehension skills we all learned in grade school and high school. In effect you attempt to portray you OPINION as a definitive explanation of the material presented, whereas all you actually do is just belch forth a myriad of generalities to avoid discussion of actual content. Let's see if you far better as we go.
Your 2nd paragraph: Your "belief" is not relevant nor apropos to the content of the material given. The material explains historical origin and usage with regards to a minority of society and the appropriation of such by a segment the larger population. What you do is basically take the "long road" that leads to a reiteration of your original misguided and erroneous "definition". In doing so, you demonstrate the innate prejudice of all who "think" as you do...given the historical review compared to your current personal revised "definition/explanation". When FACTS are compared to Beliefs, facts win out every time.
Your 3rd paragraph: This is just some absurd level of denial on your part to support your "belief" in a revisionist definition couched in prejudice. Again, what you "believe" is irrelevant when compared to valid, documented historical FACTS. One cannot have a logical, rational debate with a person who's convictions rest not on facts and the logic derived from said facts, but on a faith in their own belief system. In effect you're trying to pass off debating how many angels can dance on a pinhead as "logical".
Your 4th paragraph: Your "questions" are essentially just a regurgitation of the nonsense I've previously addressed here...questions based wholly on what you "believe" and what you deny. Essentially, just self serving blather on your part.
The remainder of your screed is just more of the SOS (same old silliness). Like any religious fanatic, you're deaf, dumb and blind to reason, facts and history. My previous assessment of your diatribes stands. Carry on.
Hmm, given the purposely revisionist and dodgy basis for your screed, I'll have to deconstruct it piece by piece so the reading audience can see your folly in no uncertain terms.
First of all, I'm happy to hear you think I sound intelligent. I like to think I tend to present a reasonably intelligent argument on most issues, and I think I did on this one a well.
But thank you again for the compliment.
All that aside, if you want to talk about a lack of comprehension skills, let's talk about yours.
You started out excoriating me for supposedly attempting to portray my OPINION as fact, when I clearly stated that I BELIEVE (think; consider; feel, assume, etc. = OPINION) what I was saying, and never presented anything as factual data. This is after all, an OPINION type of subject.
Then you belched forth a myriad of generalities to make your weak claim that I belched forth a myriad of generalities.
Next, you bleated and babbled some garbage about historical origin and usage of blah, blah, blah... when I never addressed nor do I give a shit about the "historical origin and usage" of the term. It is something I am not interested in.
My only interest lies in what it means to ME, and what it means TODAY.
Not what it meant to some writer who coined it sixty + years ago during a time when the complaints of minorities were legitimate and based on actual rampant discrimination, as opposed to the empty, self-serving, social/political agenda based whining of today.
Next came the point where you started in with the good old "pot calling the kettle black" logic. You hurled some half-baked horse shit about not being able to debate with someone who relies not on facts and logic, but in faith derived from a belief system.... all while YOU relied not on facts and logic, but in faith derived from your belief system.
Apparently, you swallow all the woke media's sympathetic sobbing and hand-wringing on behalf of black criminals who resist arrest and end up dead, or threaten public transit passengers with death, then end up dead themselves after some good Samaritan tried to protect others. Etc, etc, ad nauseum.
I'm sure in your mind all this adds up to evil white people preying on innocent black people while you, like the woke media you get your so-called "facts" from, ignores the daily litany of violence and murders committed by these same innocent, woke victims.
The remainder of your screed is just more of the SOS (same old silliness). Like any woke fanatic, you're deaf and blind to reason, facts and history. My previous assessment of your diatribe stands.
And BTW.... your own weak, half-baked attempt to sound intelligent.... didn't.
It flopped. Sounded forced. Labored and lumbering. Pointless, rambling, grandiloquent posing. Like you were trying to prove that you too can use fancy words, and be every bit as erudite and articulate as Nomad, dammit!!!
But it's obvious that you're really not very good at it.
I could go on further about how your need to resort to barbs and personal attacks further weakens your already weak argument, but I think enough is enough.
Carry on.
What made you think (if you're capable of such) that mocking my writing style in a previous paragraph and substituting your regurgitation of your previous bigoted bilge will give it some gravitas?
