Ah, so you’re going with the false dilemma fallacy instead?
Sarcasm aside, look, it’s not the “that you don’t publish a manifesto” thing, it’s that you constantly and consistently attempt to oversimplify and ignore actual current situations in favor of your idealized end goals. Having an idealized goal is great, but the fact that you routinely blithely ignore the actual topic being discussed in favor of baseless utopian musings is, being blunt, somewhat irksome. And that’s on every topic–race, gender, politics, etc.
I get that you’re an autistic genderqueer radical-equalist iconoclast, and I respect that, and even agree with you on some perspectives. But it generally isn’t helpful and is distracting to the actual discussion being held, which is why I’ve just gotten in the habit of flagging your posts as off-topic when you start navel-gazing on the word particles.
On top of that, you display a distinct egocentric streak that makes interacting with you when you’re pontificating on your idealized goals to be extremely frustrating, because not only do you fail to acknowledge that other people might have different viewpoints than yourself, you refuse to even acknowledge that the possibility exists.
And, finally, when people try to point out the implications of your words, you have repeatedly engaged in what I can only call a dishonest rhetorical tactic of redefining them on the fly to mean what you want them to mean, instead of what the general consensus meaning is. And, basically, as I and everyone else can’t know what you mean by a specific word before we interact with you, arguing with you is pointless, because you can move the goalposts as you please to make the protestor in the wrong.
Which also leads to the converse perspective–since I can’t know if your statements are communicating the generally accepted semantical meaning that I would read them as, then, just as I can’t take your negative statements that I disagree with at their stated value, then neither can I take your positive statements at their stated value–because you’ve shown that you will say “That’s not what that word means to me” despite it being the dictionary definition and insisting on your own privileged interpretation. If I can’t tell what a given statement means without attempting to challenge it for clarification, why bother with the attempt at engagement or comprehension at all?
And if this came off as too brusque, I apologize, but, for some reason (i.e. I’m in the middle of watching a wannabe fascist dictator being elected by a hateful electorate) I got really irked at someone’s refusal to acknowledge the reality that we live in and who gave a petulant response to a humorous poke to stay on topic. I should have just flagged as Off Topic in the first place, rather than engaging, but, congrats, you got elected for me to vent my spleen at.
