it seems intentionally missing the point or demanding exact dictionary-definition is part of the skeptical toolbox of some
If consulting a dictionary is removed from the "skeptical toolbox," then how are we supposed to clarify the terms of discussion when people start misusing words in crazy ways?
the implicit demand that people of colour or their allies have to defend their experience of cultural appropriation on the terms of (I'm guessing here) mostly white men.
Which demands are being made of people of color?
How do the self-appointed "allies" know that they're accurately representing the interests of the people they're trying to protect, when even people of color don't all agree about what constitutes cultural appropriation?
So teasing out the details and making sense of that concept is the purpose of that thread. Being that this is a skeptics forum, we're trying to discuss the concept in terms of evidence and reason. Evidence and reason are are not the exclusive purview of "white men"; they're tools that serve everyone regardless of demographic identity.
Instead of endeavoring to understand, there's a doubling-down on the format.
The discussion in the last few pages of the thread have been about trying to establish a cogent definition of "cultural appropriation." The problem is that the goalposts keep shifting all over the place.