“I’m not racist I just feel people who are forced to live in hotels because the government put them there and can’t work should take collective responsibility for the acts of a British man because they’re all not white and should be burned alive in a hotel”

Something about belligerent insistence on the suitability of very obviously flawed epistemic methods

When someone says, but what about x? But what if you're wrong about y? What about this thing that happens or could happen?

The answer is "nuh uh I'm right", and "this is the only way to be right"

This is interesting! I think you can draw a line between arguing that reading a text gives you knowledge of the authors intent, looking at some gives you K of their "sex", and that the Bible alone gives K of how to serve god (or interpretations of the bible as holy divine and all encompassing)