"The definition of "racism" is racist" -Liberal Pundit
Apparently, the definition of the term "racist" doesnt fit the progressive agenda and, just like everything else that doesn't fit their world view it is therefore racist.
"The definition of "racism" is racist" -Liberal Pundit
Apparently, the definition of the term "racist" doesnt fit the progressive agenda and, just like everything else that doesn't fit their world view it is therefore racist.
Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Yet another SJW mankurt pretending racism isn't racism. Nothing new to see here, move along.
My Mac’s online dictionary defines “racism” as:
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
• prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior: a program to combat racism.
Dictionary.com tells us:
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
I could keep going with other dictionaries but you get the idea: nowhere in these dictionary definitions of racism is the limiting factor that only people with power can be racists or that black people can’t be racist.
But dictionaries and the English language aren’t just a random explosion of letters. There are actually reasons that racism is defined as it is: to distinguish it from other concepts.
Let’s dip into the linguistics for a moment.
In the progressive mind, black people can’t be racist, although they can be prejudiced. This distinction is false and completely ignores the difference between the concepts of racism and prejudice.
There’s a structure to words and concepts. Take a simple, concrete example like the words “animal” and “dog.” The term animal is the broader concept because while all dogs are animals, it’s not true that all animals are dogs.
In the case of “racist” and “prejudiced,” the broader term is prejudice. The origin of the word is clear by looking at it: pre-judging someone or something. It’s a wider concept than “racism” because race is only one of the possible categories that someone can be biased about. A person could be prejudiced based on gender, skin color, nationality or any number of other things.
Racism is clearly specific to race. If you’re prejudiced against someone because they are a woman, that’s not racism, it’s sexism. If that prejudice is due to race-any race-than that’s racist.
The “liberal definition” ignores all of this by arbitrarily adding qualifiers like “a system of disadvantage.” By changing the definition of the word racist, it creates a missing word in the language: what DO we call someone who is black and doesn’t like white people because of their skin color? If it’s just “prejudiced” than how do we distinguish this from someone who doesn’t like New Yorkers or unwed mothers?
The fact that any of this needs to be pointed out to anyone with even a basic grasp of the English language shows the enduring power of academic Marxism. It’s hard to get so far from reality without living in an ivory tower.
The simple moral concept “you shouldn’t hate anyone because of their race” has been loaded down by Marx’s concepts of class struggle and imperialism, then tinkered with by post-Marxist scholars like Cornel West to include even more restrictions based by things like “microinstitutional or localized analysis of the mechanisms that sustain white supremacist discourse in the everyday life of non-Europeans.”
Stir that all together, through out the racist dictionary and voila! Black people can’t be racist!
Originally posted by long pigI skipped to the last sentence to see what your stance was, and I couldn't agree more.
Liberals and conservatives disagree about racism because liberals are trying to redefine the word “racism” in a way that veers sharply from what the actual dictionary definition is.My Mac’s online dictionary defines “racism” as:
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
• prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior: a program to combat racism.
Dictionary.com tells us:
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
I could keep going with other dictionaries but you get the idea: nowhere in these dictionary definitions of racism is the limiting factor that only people with power can be racists or that black people can’t be racist.But dictionaries and the English language aren’t just a random explosion of letters. There are actually reasons that racism is defined as it is: to distinguish it from other concepts.
Let’s dip into the linguistics for a moment.
In the progressive mind, black people can’t be racist, although they can be prejudiced. This distinction is false and completely ignores the difference between the concepts of racism and prejudice.
There’s a structure to words and concepts. Take a simple, concrete example like the words “animal” and “dog.” The term animal is the broader concept because while all dogs are animals, it’s not true that all animals are dogs.
In the case of “racist” and “prejudiced,” the broader term is prejudice. The origin of the word is clear by looking at it: pre-judging someone or something. It’s a wider concept than “racism” because race is only one of the possible categories that someone can be biased about. A person could be prejudiced based on gender, skin color, nationality or any number of other things.
Racism is clearly specific to race. If you’re prejudiced against someone because they are a woman, that’s not racism, it’s sexism. If that prejudice is due to race-any race-than that’s racist.
The “liberal definition” ignores all of this by arbitrarily adding qualifiers like “a system of disadvantage.” By changing the definition of the word racist, it creates a missing word in the language: what DO we call someone who is black and doesn’t like white people because of their skin color? If it’s just “prejudiced” than how do we distinguish this from someone who doesn’t like New Yorkers or unwed mothers?
The fact that any of this needs to be pointed out to anyone with even a basic grasp of the English language shows the enduring power of academic Marxism. It’s hard to get so far from reality without living in an ivory tower.
The simple moral concept “you shouldn’t hate anyone because of their race” has been loaded down by Marx’s concepts of class struggle and imperialism, then tinkered with by post-Marxist scholars like Cornel West to include even more restrictions based by things like “microinstitutional or localized analysis of the mechanisms that sustain white supremacist discourse in the everyday life of non-Europeans.”Stir that all together, through out the racist dictionary and voila! Black people can’t be racist!
Glad to see we have some people here not afraid to say what everyone is really thinking. 👆
The liberal definition of racism doesn't simply say certain groups can't be racist, it all but says only one group can be. The majority who holds power.
I wonder who that could be?
This line of thinking causes one group to feel guilt even though they're doing nothing at all and takes away guilt from a group when they commit the wrong.
Originally posted by long pig
The liberal definition of racism doesn't simply say certain groups can't be racist, it all but says only one group can be. The majority who holds power.I wonder who that could be?
This line of thinking causes one group to feel guilt even though they're doing nothing at all and takes away guilt from a group when they commit the wrong.
👆
Originally posted by -Pr-
The word "liberals" the way it gets used on this board doesn't seem to have much in common with the actual word it comes from...
It has nothing to do with freedom or liberty. Its quite the opposite, in fact.
Originally posted by long pig
Thats because the word " liberal" liberals use to describe themselves doesn't have much in common with the the word it actually comes from. They changed the definition.It has nothing to do with freedom or liberty. Its quite the opposite, in fact.
Then why continue to call them liberals if they aren't in fact liberals.
I mean, under the most basic definition, I'm a liberal, but I see very little of myself in what you would call one.
Granted, I'm not American, but that just makes the issue more complicated either way.
Originally posted by long pig
Liberal, racism, race, gay and rape are a few examples of terms liberals have changed the definition of.Having sex with a woman who's been drinking isn't rape....but to liberals it is.
Originally posted by Star428
^Precisely. Of course liberals definition of the word "liberal" is going to be a more liberal one. They're liberals, afterall. They're free to interpret or define words any way they like. 🙄