<:Gun:639978512207314973>

sleep

<:sleeb:640412152867323904>

nerthugroyper

Definition ---> Premises and evolution or Premises and evolution ---> definition

i think there are more than 2 positions to have

i tuck you in @Nerthulas

<:comfy:639985510785351680>

Premises and evolution ---> definition
I find this approach to be the more convincing and novel.

You work to the definition, instead of working from it.

ok, so you've said two things thusfar, you've said that A. the second is better at convincing people than the first, and you've said that B. you no longer use the term Race, or try to argue for that term

I can get behind A, but B is bad

I did not mean I do not use it at all.

@esotericpazuzuism i fuck u in

I just don't start there.

<:FreePepe:294874238928814081>

<:greta:639980991775113227>

I use a functional definition of race.

HOW DARE YOU

Because I can

One that is develop by narrative and evolutionary proces.

how about a placeholder definition of race?

I think you can win 10/10 times, but I do not see you convincing your biased opponents as often.

generally certian biases are ideologically supremicist in nature

@wakandanwarrior is a black girl who loves nick fuentes

on twitter

Arguing over word definitions just makes race deniers look dumb and disingenuous.

✝️

tromm will rot in hell

I'm rotting on earth.

Like the molecular geneticist I was talking about. Once I started using a functional definition of race, he started to push back. He started giving and giving. I was about to finish him off before I had to vc with a friend.

ok I see what you're saying

I thought you were saying something different

<:Yes:639977935209627658>

don't think I don't know what this means

My bad for the bad explanation. I am interested in engineering good arguments that even Some biased people will give in for.