Your Dictionary Definition of Racism Is Outdated Trash

[motonoggin]

8 minutes ago, NaturallyAspirated said:

You and others such as the author of the aforementioned article are overcomplicating the issue.  If the issue you have is white on black racism, state it as such, don't co-opt a word that has many other applications.  State white on black racism is bad, you will get concurrence from everyone but the actual racists.  Trying to negate or remove the idea of black on white racism is logically inconsistent, and an erroneous tack.  

Neal

What you refer to as 'black on white racism' is just plain prejudice. Black people don't have any institutional power to enforce their contempt for white people by creating an entire system that oppresses them on a daily basis. Racism is prejudice + institutional power.

I think you want to hang onto this outdated and out of context definition because it allows you to say that reverse racism is a real thing. I only say that because you keep morally equating systematic oppression of poc with poc saying or doing mean things to white people. 

 

 

Edited January 25, 2018 by motonoggin

[Snake]

6 minutes ago, motonoggin said:

What you refer to as 'black on white racism' is just plain prejudice. Black people don't have any institutional power to enforce their contempt for white people by creating an entire system that oppresses them on a daily basis. Racism is prejudice + institutional power.

I think you want to hang onto this outdated and out of context definition because it allows you to say that reverse racism is a real thing. I only say that because you keep morally equating systematic oppression of poc with poc saying or doing mean things to white people. 

 

 

Your entire argument is based on a lie.

"If I change the definition of words... it all fits!"

[Snake]

So if a black dude beats you to a pulp cuz you are white, that ain't racism. Th's prejudice

[motonoggin]

Just now, Snake said:

Your entire argument is based on a lie.

"If I change the definition of words... it all fits!"

What on word term would you use to describe 'institutional and systemic oppression of non white people'?

[motonoggin]

1 minute ago, Snake said:

So if a black dude beats you to a pulp cuz you are white, that ain't racism. Th's prejudice

Pretty much, yup.

Or bigotry. 

It could even be described as 'race based violence', but that's still not racism.

It also doesn't make it ok. It's just not racism.

Edited January 25, 2018 by motonoggin

[NaturallyAspirated]

10 minutes ago, motonoggin said:

What you refer to as 'black on white racism' is just plain prejudice. Black people don't have any institutional power to enforce their contempt for white people by creating an entire system that oppresses them on a daily basis. Racism is prejudice + institutional power.

I think you want to hang onto this outdated and out of context definition because it allows you to say that reverse racism is a real thing. I only say that because you keep equating systematic oppression of poc with poc saying or doing mean things to white people. 

 

 

Racism isn't lashed to only institutional occurrences.  Again if you have an issue with institutional black on white racism state it as such and it can be discussed from there.  Make the case, provide the examples and data.  Don't co-opt words.

I think you promote this idiotic idea of co-opting definitions because you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue.  You think it current to be on the edgy side of co-opting.

Racism happens in all directions, trying to co-opt it into a narrow segment of the overall happening only reduces the implication of the word.  

The push to promote the gravity of "prejudice" and prune "racism" doesn't solve the problem. How do we eliminate "prejudice" which is the overall problem, and which also includes "racism"?

See how co-opting the definitions doesn't resolve the problem?  It merely moves it from one word, racism (as currently defined) to prejudice (as you define).   

Neal

 

[Snake]

5 minutes ago, motonoggin said:

Pretty much, yup.

Or bigotry. 

It could even be described as 'race based violence', but that's still not racism.

It also doesn't make it ok. It's just not racism.

.......if we base that on....

CHANGING THE DEFINITION OF WORDS.

[MiSledder]

9 minutes ago, motonoggin said:

Pretty much, yup.

Or bigotry. 

It could even be described as 'race based violence', but that's still not racism.

It also doesn't make it ok. It's just not racism.

[NaturallyAspirated]

Just now, Snake said:

.......if we base that on....

CHANGING THE DEFINITION OF WORDS.

Which doesn't fix the problem, it merely shifts the problem upon a new word, prejudice, or bigotry, or whatever the hell he comes up with...

Neal

[motonoggin]

2 minutes ago, NaturallyAspirated said:

Racism isn't lashed to only institutional occurrences.  Again if you have an issue with institutional black on white racism state it as such and it can be discussed from there.  Make the case, provide the examples and data.  Don't co-opt words.

I think you promote this idiotic idea of co-opting definitions because you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue.  You think it current to be on the edgy side of co-opting.

Racism happens in all directions, trying to co-opt it into a narrow segment of the overall happening only reduces the implication of the word.  

The push to promote the gravity of "prejudice" and prune "racism" doesn't solve the problem. How do we eliminate "prejudice" which is the overall problem, and which also includes "racism"?

See how co-opting the definitions doesn't resolve the problem?  It merely moves it from one word, racism (as currently defined) to prejudice (as you define).   

Neal

 

So, your problem is that I'm shortening 'systematic and institutionalized oppression of non whites' to 'racism'.

Did you crusade against changing/adding to the definition of 'gay' or 'queer'?

 

[motonoggin]

If we call homosexuals 'gay', everyone will think we're talking about light-hearted and carefree people!!!!!

[NaturallyAspirated]

4 minutes ago, motonoggin said:

So, your problem is that I'm shortening 'systematic and institutionalized oppression of non whites' to 'racism'.

Did you crusade against changing/adding to the definition of 'gay' or 'queer'?

 

I don't have the problem with it, you do.  All you are accomplishing is a slight of hand.  Co-opting the word doesn't provide an avenue to fixing the problem.

Not at all, you see gay can still be used to mean lighthearted and happy.  The removal of that definition didn't occur.  Same with queer, it still means weird or odd.  You on the other hand are implicitly trying to remove the definition of racism that includes black on white racism, from racism.

Neal

[motonoggin]

Just now, NaturallyAspirated said:

I don't have the problem with it, you do.  All you are accomplishing is a slight of hand.  Co-opting the word doesn't provide an avenue to fixing the problem.

Not at all, you see gay can still be used to mean lighthearted and happy.  The removal of that definition didn't occur.  Same with queer, it still means weird or odd.  You on the other hand are implicitly trying to remove the definition of racism that includes black on white racism, from racism.

Neal

Right, because we do, in fact, redefine words all the time depending upon context. 

In one context ie 'make the Yuletide gay' and another 'mom, I'm gay' the meaning of the word changes. 

We started using the word 'gay' to mean 'homosexual' long before it was recognized in the dictionary.

[Cold War]

3 minutes ago, NaturallyAspirated said:

I don't have the problem with it, you do.  All you are accomplishing is a slight of hand.  Co-opting the word doesn't provide an avenue to fixing the problem.

Not at all, you see gay can still be used to mean lighthearted and happy.  The removal of that definition didn't occur.  Same with queer, it still means weird or odd.  You on the other hand are implicitly trying to remove the definition of racism that includes black on white racism, from racism.

Neal

You are over thinking it.  It is more or less about winning internet arguments on the Facebook.  

[motonoggin]

1 minute ago, Cold War said:

You are over thinking it.  It is more or less about winning internet arguments on the Facebook.  

No, it's about white people trying to claim that black people saying mean things to them is morally equivalent to white people systematically oppressing non whites.

[MiSledder]

6 minutes ago, motonoggin said:

No, it's about white people trying to claim that black people saying mean things to them is morally equivalent to white people systematically oppressing non whites.

[Cold War]

1 minute ago, motonoggin said:

No, it's about white people trying to claim that black people saying mean things to them is morally equivalent to white people systematically oppressing non whites.

Is it?  

Or are whites trying to claim  hating people because of their skin color is racism?

Butthurt facebooker! 

If anything this shows the lengths some will go to justify their beliefs. 

[motonoggin]

1 minute ago, Cold War said:

Is it?  

Or are whites trying to claim  hating people because of their skin color is racism?

Butthurt facebooker! 

If anything this shows the lengths some will go to justify their beliefs. 

Yes, it is. 

[Skidude600]

1 hour ago, motonoggin said:

No, it's about white people trying to claim that black people saying mean things to them is morally equivalent to white people systematically oppressing non whites.

So basically what you are saying is if a black man calls a white guy honky, cracker or any other name associated with the color of his skin, he's being a bigot. If a white man calls a black man the N word, he's racist because it's connected to the ongoing, systematic oppression of black people. Interesting.

[motonoggin]

2 minutes ago, Skidude600 said:

So basically what you are saying is if a black man calls a white guy honky, cracker or any other name associated with the color of his skin, he's being a bigot. If a white man calls a black man the N word, he's racist because it's connected to the ongoing, systematic oppression of black people. Interesting.

Pretty much, yes.

 

[Skidude600]

1 minute ago, motonoggin said:

Pretty much, yes.

 

[Rod]

[Wildboer]

13 hours ago, NaturallyAspirated said:

Yet far less so than the article quoted.  

It's utter idiocy.

Neal

Language is fluid, don't go all linguistic determinist on me Neil. Poor tone, sure, but calling it nonsense is whining for the sake of being offerended.

[Guest]

On 1/23/2018 at 11:21 PM, motonoggin said:

Your Dictionary Definition of Racism Is Outdated Trash

https://www.onlyblackgirl.com/blog/2017/4/10/your-dictionary-is-trash

 by Rebekah Hutson

It’s 15 minutes into an intense reverse racism Facebook argument. You’re arguing back and forth with pesky negros who keep blabbering on and on about how reverse racism doesn’t exist. But you know that is a lie, because you were called an expired jar of mayo just last week. You’re all out of examples and insults, the blacks are winning, becoming a little too triumphant. Little do they know that you have one last fact up your sleeve. One last fact to rule them all. It’s 5 seconds left in the 4th quarter, you hit em with all you have left.

“Well the DICTIONARY says racism is prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior.”

GOT EM! You do the Cotton-Eyed Joe to celebrate. You’ve won Facebook, how can anyone argue with the dictionary?

Me. I can.

I, along with any other person who uses basic logic can argue agaisnt dictionary definitions. I have come to shatter all of your reverse racism wet dreams.

So here’s the thing, the dictionary is not the law of the land. It’s a dictionary. It’s a book, it’s a pocket guide. It’s not the pirate code written in blood, it wasn’t written by god. It’s not the 10 commandments, nobody had to make human sacrifices for it. It’s a reference guide of words. It was written by a bunch of white people to lay out general definitions of old white words. The dictionary is not written to apply to social context or even to modern speech. There is no book big enough to accommodate every word and all of it’s different meanings and contexts. In fact, if you bothered to use the free resource that goes by the name of Google, you could look up “How our dictionaries are created” and you would discover the dictionaries themselves admit that words are forever changing and dictionaries are only a snapshot or popular meaning.

From Oxford Dictionary themselves:

“Our dictionary programmes constantly monitor the use of language so that our experts can identify and record the changes taking place. The result is dictionaries which give a window on to how language is used today.”

— HTTPS://WWW.OXFORDDICTIONARIES.COM/OUR-STORY/CREATING-DICTIONARIES

The term and idea of racism was invented by white people in the 17th century in order to differentiate themselves from all the pesky brown folks So of course the “I think I’m better than you” definition would fit this situation. However, after hundreds of years of white supremacy, things have shifted to far worse than just thinking you’re better than someone else based on skin color. I would declare racism dead, right now in 2017 if racism was just “someone thinking their better based on skin color”. Because who cares? We all know that’s false, but due to white supremacy shenanigans, shit was made much worse and complicated. Thus why that simplified definition does not work anymore.

I’m not sure if you skipped grade school, but I sure didn’t, and one of the first things I learn in any type of English class is that words can have multiple meanings and context exists. Dictionaries are opinions, they are based on popularity. There is no judge and jury who gets together to discuss and determine what a word means and that is what is put down in the dictionary. It’s a book of popular opinion, and when white people are the ones writing the dictionary, of the course the popular opinion of racism is going to be “someone being mean to me”. Just look at the fact that the dictionary only accommodates western English. There is no AAVE, which is an actual recognized language in linguistics, there’s not even regional language in there, because it’s not “proper” or “white”…even though Western English itself isn’t “proper English”. But we don’t have time to discuss that tea.

 read more on how the dictionary is bias trash, check out this fancily drawn cartoon. I want to focus more on how context is a thing that exists.

Context matters when we are talking about social issues. Words have social meanings that may differ than the commonly known or understood meaning. You can’t tell me “to twist”, doesn’t mean the dance you do twisting your upper and lower body in opposite directions simultaneously, just because the dictionary says it means “cause to rotate around something that remains stationary”. Or that “mad” doesn’t also mean something extreme or exaggerated, (like your mad whack logic), just because the dictionary says”enraged; greatly provoked or irritated; angry”. Yeah, those are basic meanings of the word at face value, but guess what words have more than one meaning and when you add context, the meanings change. Just because YOU don’t get it, doesn’t mean everyone else on the east coast doesn’t commonly understand the different definitions of the word “mad”. The same logic applies with the term racism.

When we are talking about racism, today in 2017, the old blanket definition based on common understanding, just does not suffice. Yes, that is still the foundation and underlying ideology of racism, but we are well past the foundation, the house in built. You need to update your definitions of words to modern times fam. In addition, we are talking about a social problem, something that has social context. So when we apply words to social issues, or any other context outside of basic speech, meanings change. Just like how the word “gay” changes when put into social context. The dictionary says gay is “lighthearted and carefree”, are you going to tell me, it is incorrect that “gay” also refers to someone who is homosexual? Shit changes, things are not black and white. In fact many dictionary HAVE had to update entries under words like “gay” to include these new social meanings, because it is now a widely known definition and understanding of the word. Look in a 50-year old dictionary and tell me if you see this definition of gay included. There’s a reason updated version of dictionaries are released all the time. When we are talking about race and racism as a social construct, we are talking about a highly complex, multi-layered issue that cannot just be summed up with “thinking your race superior”. Which is where the argument of “reverse racism” falls flat, and the far more commonly understood definition of racism being race + powercomes from.

White supremacy has been at work for a long time. Long enough to create systems of injustice. We see it every single day, if you need still needs examples of this in 2017, google is free. White supremacist systems have been implemented that hold themselves above everyone else. So much so, that the basic mindset of white people being better than everyone else, simply doesn’t matter anymore. It’s already built into the system. Personal beliefs don’t really matter when the system is built on racial bias.

You could be the most anti-racism white person on the planet, and still make zero difference, because the system is already setup to make sure white people stay ahead and superior. This is why the anti-racism movement is rooted in restructuring the system and not just “-lets just kill all the racist white people”. Lucky you, that doesn’t solve anything if the whole system is fucked up, and POCs aren’t as hateful as white folks have been. When we are addressing this idea of race + power, we are referring to the fact that, in order to be racist you have to have the power to have a systematic effect. I can call you a expired jar of mayo, but will that stop you from getting every job before a person of color? Nope. Will that end the wage gap? Will you get kicked out of school for you natural hair? Will you now be stopped and frisked at random? Will you need “random” security checks at the airport? Will you be assaulted, knocked out, and have your limp body dragged off an United airlines flight? Will you be shot by a cop for existing? Nope, nope nope and nope. The answer is no. You will get your feelings hurt and then you will go on to live a white privileged life. It doesn’t work the other way around for the rest of us. Hence why “reverse racism” and the dictionary is a load of shit.

Even if every person of color really did HATE white people, and I mean really hate them…like want them all dead type of hate, we still wouldn’t have the power to make that happen. Obama, as president didn’t even have the power to be racist. Do you think the house and senate would have allowed black ass O’breezy to pass any bill that said “deport all white people back to Europe”? No, that would never happen because white people still have the majority power in this country. Meanwhile y’alls favorite circus peanut, passed it for brown folks, within two weeks of being in office. If the a black president of these so called, united states couldn’t do it (if he wanted to), what makes you think the random POCs in the hallway at school is going to have any impact on your life’s trajectory?

Now, POCs can be prejudice and discriminatory, towards white people and each other, however those things are not the same as racism. Prejudice and discrimination are more of an individual ideology, an opinion that isn’t based on any actual facts. By itself, it isn’t systematic. When you start applying that prejudice into a larger vessel like the american government, then it becomes racism. So those extremist that do want to kill all white people, would be considered pretty damn prejudice and discriminatory against white people. But again, even they do not possess the power to actually make that happen. Are you getting the gist here? Great.

So, to recap this long ass post, the dictionary is outdated and based on white male opinions. Words have multiple meanings and change with time and context. So you can get off your dictionary high horse. Also “reverse racism” isn’t a thing as you are not being effect outside of your own hurt feelings. You did not win your Facebook argument. You need to log off and take this L with you.

It’s 2017 folks, get with the times, update your definitions accordingly, and throw your beloved dictionary into the nearest recycling bin.

Thank you and I’m out.

 

Serious question:

With ALL that has transpired between blacks and whites, do you honestly believe that education, attitude change, etc., can EVER fix the black/white problem in America?

Without trying to affix blame, just strictly on what's happened, do you think this can be fixed?

All the whites robbed, raped, murdered, do you think this can be forgotten????? 

What whites have done to blacks, do you think it can be forgiven? 

 

[NaturallyAspirated]

10 hours ago, Wildboer said:

Language is fluid, don't go all linguistic determinist on me Neil. Poor tone, sure, but calling it nonsense is whining for the sake of being offerended.

There is a significant difference between fluid language and word co-opting.  The aforementioned word co-opting is disgraceful and idiotic.

Neal