Only the few suggesting the -isms can define; redefine and contradict them; while the consenting many can only reason (want vs not want; true vs false; believing vs not believing; is vs isn't etc.) among each other about the suggested meaning.
Have you ever defined an -ism for the many? How could your suggestion reach them without a mass communication infrastructure? Does the world wide web represents such an infrastructure and was it suggested by the few towards the consenting many?
it's not
How could a perceivable "it" aka something; be a "not" aka nothing?
Only the few suggesting the -isms can define; redefine and contradict them; while the consenting many can only reason (want vs not want; true vs false; believing vs not believing; is vs isn't etc.) among each other about the suggested meaning.
Have you ever defined an -ism for the many? How could your suggestion reach them without a mass communication infrastructure? Does the world wide web represents such an infrastructure and was it suggested by the few towards the consenting many?
How could a perceivable "it" aka something; be a "not" aka nothing?