I didn't think you intended it as such, and am not "accusing" you of anything.
I was simply making an observational comment about how that word is commonly used in the west. You yourself said it's not the best word.
Plenty of vernacular expressions have their roots in racism and other inequality, and are used by media to support heirarchies and disguise inequality.
It doesn't hurt to be mindful of that or to question our unwitting reinforcement of these ideas. For example a few years ago we saw UK "expats" voting for brexit to keep out "migrants". A little more mindfulness might have meant a little less voting for leopards to eat faces.
I'm very curious about what you would like to see happen.
Do you want to deport all black people to Africa and all white people to Europe, or are you presuming that Indigenous would freely decide to host all of you on their land indefinitely?
Thank you for clarifying. In that case the rebuttal to kreskin above should be that the 25th amendment does not apply to crimes, rather than that many presidents commit crimes.
Btw, as an outsider I'm pressing X to doubt that anyone will ever be able to successfully invoke the 25th amendment. It will be even harder than impeaching. None of the people involved are willing to relinquish power and independent access to determine their puppet's dementia would be impossible.
Perhaps you missed the headlines when the ICC called out Facebook for actively, deliberately obstructing the ICC genocide investigation into the Rohingya genocide.
In moral philosophy cultural relativism isn't merely an empirical observation about how morality develops, though. It's a value judgment about moral soundness that posits that all forms of morality are sound in context.
(When he says "entirely relative" that signals cultural relativism).
To use your chess example a cultural relativist would hold buckle and thong to the argument that if most people in your chess club habitually play scholars mate and bongcloud then those are the soundest openings, full stop, and that you are objectively right to think that.
Of course chess is a problematic analogy because there are proven known optimums, so tha analogy is biased on the side of objective morality.
I think you're missing the significance of his phrase "entirely relative".
In moral philosophy, cultural relativity holds that morals are not good or bad in themselves but only within their particular context. Strong moral relativists would hold the belief that it's fine to murder children if that is a normal part of your culture.
I suppose it's for people who feel like they are not ingesting enough microplastics.