|
|
 Originally Posted by boost
Far too many potentially productive conversations never pay off because people refuse to humour their peers attempts to lay a foundation. Essentially you are saying that you know it to be the case that the framework being set up by MMM could not possibly in any way bare fruit. If this is not the case, I'm open to hearing how that's not what was meant to be inferred from your end of the exchange and further how it is reasonable that that wouldn't be the takeaway.
If this is the case, and if you are indeed interested in making headway towards the truth in these discussions, I think you should put into question the way you navigate them in such a rigid unyielding manner.
I think this has all been a misunderstanding. The OP references "transracial" as it fits in the social narrative, which means things like Rachel Dolezal being a white woman who calls herself black. MMM then asked me for my definition. I wasn't sure why he did, but I provided it because I figured he wanted to go somewhere with it. Then he said the OP was unanswerable based on my definition. I pointed out that the OP question has nothing to do with my definition.
I don't know what else I could have said about it. I recognize that my persona on this forum tends to not get the "ah okay" or "that makes sense" kind of responses and instead tends to get the "wrong, as usual" type of response.
|
Reply With Quote