Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
This is probably about the only time I'll ever say this, but Gonzalo is right about "racism." He is not the only one who agrees with this; it is widely accepted, except by those who will not accept that blacks in America have anything to complaiin about. At least so it seems.Racism has been misdefined by white people for far too long. We are simply restoring the correct definition of the word.Anecdote does not equal statistical truthsWhile I normally respect the accuracy and objectivity of Huffington Post articles I must disagree with the specific item referenced above.Nope. Whites and people of color are ARRESTED at the same rates, but INCARCERATED at vastly different rates. Fourteen Examples of Racism in Criminal Justice System | Huffington Post
I lived in New York City for most of my life and my occupation frequently took me into neighborhoods where street-corner drug dealing was commonplace. Over an approximate twenty-five year period I can confidently report that never once did I see a White hawking drugs from a street corner, or dealing from a car, or a hallway. Not once. So I really would like to talk this item over with the writer of that article because what he (Bill Quigley) has said conflicts with the facts as I -- and I'm sure many others -- have witnessed them.
Also, anyone who watches the TV "ride-along" series, COPS, has plainly seen that (at least) the 80% majority of those arrested for drug dealing or possession are Black.
Demanding that a word means what you want it to mean instead of the standard definition does not equal the truth either.
7 reasons why reverse racism doesn't exist
So. . . Restore means to bring something back to what it once was. When you say that you are restoring the correct definition of racism, you're saying that racism originally meant what you're saying it means, essentially prejudice plus power, and that the current dictionary definition is some new invention that is misdefining the word. You are incorrect.
https://www.andover.edu/About/Newsroom/TheMagazine/Documents/8-PedOfRacismSWJournal.pdf
Prejudice plus power - RationalWiki
I can get some more random sources for you, but the general agreement seems to be that the current dictionary definition of the word is the original definition. Either you don't know the meaning of restore, or you don't understand the history of the word racism, and yet here you are authoritatively telling everyone that -you- have the correct English definition and they're all wrong, despite your obvious lack of knowledge of the portion of English being discussed.
If you're going to be ignorant, try not to be authoritative as well. It's quite possibly the worst potential combination of attributes that you can find in a human.
I'm not intentionally blurring anything. Maybe my brain is blurry at the moment. No offense was meant. So shut up.Noted. I guess when "teacher's pet" is racially offensive, I'm really in the wrong discussion.Actually, I was thinking of "teacher's pet" from the opposite perspective--What I was implying was the "intellectually superior authority" points at Asians as the smartest one in the class, the great achiever. They do this to doubly prove that blacks are losers because they don't perform equally well. I hadn't thought of Asians as brown-nosing or "kissing ass" as you put it.Yeah, Asians are the teacher's pet, for sure.
So a teacher's pet is generally understood to be someone who kisses the ass of the teacher to achieve an elevated status. It's the non racial version of calling someone a house n*gger.
What I wonder is if you're actually intending to imply that Asian people are kissing the asses of the white "teacher" identity (read intellectually superior authority), or if this was some sort of Freudian slip, because from where I'm sitting, this looks like a convenient confirmation of the growingly common hunch that many democrats are just white supremacists with guilty consciences.
Also, despite the portion of my heritage that is Chinese, I'm not offended by your overt racism, accidental or not. I do find you fucking hilarious, though
I figured that was most likely the case, I just found it fun to give a democrat shit about using offensive terms regarding a minority group. Just a head's up for future reference, teacher's pet doesn't just mean the teacher's favorite, it means someone who is actively campaigning to be the favorite.
Are you intentionally blurring what was said? The term itself isn't -racially- offensive, just derogatory. What makes it racially offensive is when you apply that derogatory term to a race. How is that not obvious?
This is probably about the only time I'll ever say this, but Gonzalo is right about "racism." He is not the only one who agrees with this; it is widely accepted, except by those who will not accept that blacks in America have anything to complaiin about. At least so it seems.Racism has been misdefined by white people for far too long. We are simply restoring the correct definition of the word.Anecdote does not equal statistical truthsWhile I normally respect the accuracy and objectivity of Huffington Post articles I must disagree with the specific item referenced above.
I lived in New York City for most of my life and my occupation frequently took me into neighborhoods where street-corner drug dealing was commonplace. Over an approximate twenty-five year period I can confidently report that never once did I see a White hawking drugs from a street corner, or dealing from a car, or a hallway. Not once. So I really would like to talk this item over with the writer of that article because what he (Bill Quigley) has said conflicts with the facts as I -- and I'm sure many others -- have witnessed them.
Also, anyone who watches the TV "ride-along" series, COPS, has plainly seen that (at least) the 80% majority of those arrested for drug dealing or possession are Black.
Demanding that a word means what you want it to mean instead of the standard definition does not equal the truth either.
7 reasons why reverse racism doesn't exist
So. . . Restore means to bring something back to what it once was. When you say that you are restoring the correct definition of racism, you're saying that racism originally meant what you're saying it means, essentially prejudice plus power, and that the current dictionary definition is some new invention that is misdefining the word. You are incorrect.
https://www.andover.edu/About/Newsroom/TheMagazine/Documents/8-PedOfRacismSWJournal.pdf
Prejudice plus power - RationalWiki
I can get some more random sources for you, but the general agreement seems to be that the current dictionary definition of the word is the original definition. Either you don't know the meaning of restore, or you don't understand the history of the word racism, and yet here you are authoritatively telling everyone that -you- have the correct English definition and they're all wrong, despite your obvious lack of knowledge of the portion of English being discussed.
If you're going to be ignorant, try not to be authoritative as well. It's quite possibly the worst potential combination of attributes that you can find in a human.
This is probably about the only time I'll ever say this, but Gonzalo is right about "racism." He is not the only one who agrees with this; it is widely accepted, except by those who will not accept that blacks in America have anything to complaiin about. At least so it seems.Racism has been misdefined by white people for far too long. We are simply restoring the correct definition of the word.Anecdote does not equal statistical truthsWhile I normally respect the accuracy and objectivity of Huffington Post articles I must disagree with the specific item referenced above.
I lived in New York City for most of my life and my occupation frequently took me into neighborhoods where street-corner drug dealing was commonplace. Over an approximate twenty-five year period I can confidently report that never once did I see a White hawking drugs from a street corner, or dealing from a car, or a hallway. Not once. So I really would like to talk this item over with the writer of that article because what he (Bill Quigley) has said conflicts with the facts as I -- and I'm sure many others -- have witnessed them.
Also, anyone who watches the TV "ride-along" series, COPS, has plainly seen that (at least) the 80% majority of those arrested for drug dealing or possession are Black.
Demanding that a word means what you want it to mean instead of the standard definition does not equal the truth either.
7 reasons why reverse racism doesn't exist
So. . . Restore means to bring something back to what it once was. When you say that you are restoring the correct definition of racism, you're saying that racism originally meant what you're saying it means, essentially prejudice plus power, and that the current dictionary definition is some new invention that is misdefining the word. You are incorrect.
https://www.andover.edu/About/Newsroom/TheMagazine/Documents/8-PedOfRacismSWJournal.pdf
Prejudice plus power - RationalWiki
I can get some more random sources for you, but the general agreement seems to be that the current dictionary definition of the word is the original definition. Either you don't know the meaning of restore, or you don't understand the history of the word racism, and yet here you are authoritatively telling everyone that -you- have the correct English definition and they're all wrong, despite your obvious lack of knowledge of the portion of English being discussed.
If you're going to be ignorant, try not to be authoritative as well. It's quite possibly the worst potential combination of attributes that you can find in a human.
This is probably about the only time I'll ever say this, but Gonzalo is right about "racism." He is not the only one who agrees with this; it is widely accepted, except by those who will not accept that blacks in America have anything to complaiin about. At least so it seems.Racism has been misdefined by white people for far too long. We are simply restoring the correct definition of the word.Anecdote does not equal statistical truths
Demanding that a word means what you want it to mean instead of the standard definition does not equal the truth either.
7 reasons why reverse racism doesn't exist
So. . . Restore means to bring something back to what it once was. When you say that you are restoring the correct definition of racism, you're saying that racism originally meant what you're saying it means, essentially prejudice plus power, and that the current dictionary definition is some new invention that is misdefining the word. You are incorrect.
https://www.andover.edu/About/Newsroom/TheMagazine/Documents/8-PedOfRacismSWJournal.pdf
Prejudice plus power - RationalWiki
I can get some more random sources for you, but the general agreement seems to be that the current dictionary definition of the word is the original definition. Either you don't know the meaning of restore, or you don't understand the history of the word racism, and yet here you are authoritatively telling everyone that -you- have the correct English definition and they're all wrong, despite your obvious lack of knowledge of the portion of English being discussed.
If you're going to be ignorant, try not to be authoritative as well. It's quite possibly the worst potential combination of attributes that you can find in a human.
It is widely accepted by people who agree with the Social Justice philosophy, but that doesn't mean that it disqualifies all definitions that came before it.
I'm not intentionally blurring anything. Maybe my brain is blurry at the moment. No offense was meant. So shut up.Noted. I guess when "teacher's pet" is racially offensive, I'm really in the wrong discussion.Actually, I was thinking of "teacher's pet" from the opposite perspective--What I was implying was the "intellectually superior authority" points at Asians as the smartest one in the class, the great achiever. They do this to doubly prove that blacks are losers because they don't perform equally well. I hadn't thought of Asians as brown-nosing or "kissing ass" as you put it.So a teacher's pet is generally understood to be someone who kisses the ass of the teacher to achieve an elevated status. It's the non racial version of calling someone a house n*gger.
What I wonder is if you're actually intending to imply that Asian people are kissing the asses of the white "teacher" identity (read intellectually superior authority), or if this was some sort of Freudian slip, because from where I'm sitting, this looks like a convenient confirmation of the growingly common hunch that many democrats are just white supremacists with guilty consciences.
Also, despite the portion of my heritage that is Chinese, I'm not offended by your overt racism, accidental or not. I do find you fucking hilarious, though
I figured that was most likely the case, I just found it fun to give a democrat shit about using offensive terms regarding a minority group. Just a head's up for future reference, teacher's pet doesn't just mean the teacher's favorite, it means someone who is actively campaigning to be the favorite.
Are you intentionally blurring what was said? The term itself isn't -racially- offensive, just derogatory. What makes it racially offensive is when you apply that derogatory term to a race. How is that not obvious?
This is probably about the only time I'll ever say this, but Gonzalo is right about "racism." He is not the only one who agrees with this; it is widely accepted, except by those who will not accept that blacks in America have anything to complaiin about. At least so it seems.Racism has been misdefined by white people for far too long. We are simply restoring the correct definition of the word.Demanding that a word means what you want it to mean instead of the standard definition does not equal the truth either.
7 reasons why reverse racism doesn't exist
So. . . Restore means to bring something back to what it once was. When you say that you are restoring the correct definition of racism, you're saying that racism originally meant what you're saying it means, essentially prejudice plus power, and that the current dictionary definition is some new invention that is misdefining the word. You are incorrect.
https://www.andover.edu/About/Newsroom/TheMagazine/Documents/8-PedOfRacismSWJournal.pdf
Prejudice plus power - RationalWiki
I can get some more random sources for you, but the general agreement seems to be that the current dictionary definition of the word is the original definition. Either you don't know the meaning of restore, or you don't understand the history of the word racism, and yet here you are authoritatively telling everyone that -you- have the correct English definition and they're all wrong, despite your obvious lack of knowledge of the portion of English being discussed.
If you're going to be ignorant, try not to be authoritative as well. It's quite possibly the worst potential combination of attributes that you can find in a human.
It is widely accepted by people who agree with the Social Justice philosophy, but that doesn't mean that it disqualifies all definitions that came before it.
What is widely accepted is that judging someone based solely on race or thinking they are inferior solely because of race is, by definition, racism. Whatever else may be said, this is the basic fact of the matter.
Geo. Carlin was all up in the Seven words you cant say. You can pretty much say any of them NOW. But now we have one more word. NIGG*R. WHY? Offense is a matter of opinion. Especially when I hear blacks use IT all damn time. Double standards and hypocrisy. Sue me.Nobody "owns " a word and nobody can control words. Nobody. Give it up.
You can make up any definition you want, but it wont change anything. Everyone knows what a racist is, and those who dont are looked at as stupid people. Youre a racist and you know youre a racist, hence the reason why you want to redefine the word so that it excludes you. It wont work dummy.And don't try to give me any bullshit from the oxford dictionary or webster dictionary about what their definition of racism is. These dictionaries were written by old white men who never experienced racism in their lives, and therefore should not be trusted to provide an accurate, unbiased definition of the word.
See, the difference between you and me is that I respect low wage workers in this country, and treat them with respect an dignity.You can make up any definition you want, but it wont change anything. Everyone knows what a racist is, and those who dont are looked at as stupid people. Youre a racist and you know youre a racist, hence the reason why you want to redefine the word so that it excludes you. It wont work dummy.And don't try to give me any bullshit from the oxford dictionary or webster dictionary about what their definition of racism is. These dictionaries were written by old white men who never experienced racism in their lives, and therefore should not be trusted to provide an accurate, unbiased definition of the word.
How about you shut your dumbass up and make sure to smile the next time i order a Quarter Pounder meal from you because, if i see any behavior i dont like, ill report you to your manager.
Youre a person of color, and youre a racist. Your existence contradicts your claim. Youre also stupid enough to try and redefine common words. Are you on crack bitch? Youre goin nowhere with that bullshit. Maybe you can talk a couple of your broke ass friends into believing your nonsense, but everyone else thinks youre a fucktard.See, the difference between you and me is that I respect low wage workers in this country, and treat them with respect an dignity.You can make up any definition you want, but it wont change anything. Everyone knows what a racist is, and those who dont are looked at as stupid people. Youre a racist and you know youre a racist, hence the reason why you want to redefine the word so that it excludes you. It wont work dummy.And don't try to give me any bullshit from the oxford dictionary or webster dictionary about what their definition of racism is. These dictionaries were written by old white men who never experienced racism in their lives, and therefore should not be trusted to provide an accurate, unbiased definition of the word.
How about you shut your dumbass up and make sure to smile the next time i order a Quarter Pounder meal from you because, if i see any behavior i dont like, ill report you to your manager.
Also, people of color cannot be racist. The REAL definition of racism tells us that racism requires power and privelege, and people of color have neither power nor privelege.
I'm not a Democrat. But I'm glad you enjoyed yourself.I'm not intentionally blurring anything. Maybe my brain is blurry at the moment. No offense was meant. So shut up.Noted. I guess when "teacher's pet" is racially offensive, I'm really in the wrong discussion.Actually, I was thinking of "teacher's pet" from the opposite perspective--What I was implying was the "intellectually superior authority" points at Asians as the smartest one in the class, the great achiever. They do this to doubly prove that blacks are losers because they don't perform equally well. I hadn't thought of Asians as brown-nosing or "kissing ass" as you put it.
I figured that was most likely the case, I just found it fun to give a democrat shit about using offensive terms regarding a minority group. Just a head's up for future reference, teacher's pet doesn't just mean the teacher's favorite, it means someone who is actively campaigning to be the favorite.
Are you intentionally blurring what was said? The term itself isn't -racially- offensive, just derogatory. What makes it racially offensive is when you apply that derogatory term to a race. How is that not obvious?
LMFAO, okay, I'll stop. I'm sorry, it just makes me giddy to have an opportunity to give a democrat a bunch of shit for saying something "racially offensive". I've got a hard on for irony, I guess.
the obvious result is to create a hostile group binary between racists (whites) and everyone else.This is probably about the only time I'll ever say this, but Gonzalo is right about "racism." He is not the only one who agrees with this; it is widely accepted, except by those who will not accept that blacks in America have anything to complaiin about. At least so it seems.Racism has been misdefined by white people for far too long. We are simply restoring the correct definition of the word.
7 reasons why reverse racism doesn't exist
So. . . Restore means to bring something back to what it once was. When you say that you are restoring the correct definition of racism, you're saying that racism originally meant what you're saying it means, essentially prejudice plus power, and that the current dictionary definition is some new invention that is misdefining the word. You are incorrect.
https://www.andover.edu/About/Newsroom/TheMagazine/Documents/8-PedOfRacismSWJournal.pdf
Prejudice plus power - RationalWiki
I can get some more random sources for you, but the general agreement seems to be that the current dictionary definition of the word is the original definition. Either you don't know the meaning of restore, or you don't understand the history of the word racism, and yet here you are authoritatively telling everyone that -you- have the correct English definition and they're all wrong, despite your obvious lack of knowledge of the portion of English being discussed.
If you're going to be ignorant, try not to be authoritative as well. It's quite possibly the worst potential combination of attributes that you can find in a human.
It is widely accepted by people who agree with the Social Justice philosophy, but that doesn't mean that it disqualifies all definitions that came before it.
What is widely accepted is that judging someone based solely on race or thinking they are inferior solely because of race is, by definition, racism. Whatever else may be said, this is the basic fact of the matter.
I tend to agree. Thankfully, most regular people that I talk to outside of forums full of political philosophy junkies are still on board with the traditional definition of racism. And I would be thankful for this even if I didn't find most of Social Justice's premises to be insane and/or hateful. Whether I'm on board or not, -NO- controversial political movement should be given license to remake the very language of a society to fit their narrative. Especially when the obvious result is to create a hostile group binary between racists (whites) and everyone else.
Maybe I'm just ignorant, but I can't think of one single historical example where dividing a nation into two groups and then training those groups to believe that one group is being victimized by the other in perpetuity, has ever led to anything positive. Or led to anything that wasn't fucking horrific. The only thing I wonder about this social justice racism narrative is, if/when it reaches critical mass, which group will be the Hutu and which will be the Tutsi?
the obvious result is to create a hostile group binary between racists (whites) and everyone else.This is probably about the only time I'll ever say this, but Gonzalo is right about "racism." He is not the only one who agrees with this; it is widely accepted, except by those who will not accept that blacks in America have anything to complaiin about. At least so it seems.So. . . Restore means to bring something back to what it once was. When you say that you are restoring the correct definition of racism, you're saying that racism originally meant what you're saying it means, essentially prejudice plus power, and that the current dictionary definition is some new invention that is misdefining the word. You are incorrect.
https://www.andover.edu/About/Newsroom/TheMagazine/Documents/8-PedOfRacismSWJournal.pdf
Prejudice plus power - RationalWiki
I can get some more random sources for you, but the general agreement seems to be that the current dictionary definition of the word is the original definition. Either you don't know the meaning of restore, or you don't understand the history of the word racism, and yet here you are authoritatively telling everyone that -you- have the correct English definition and they're all wrong, despite your obvious lack of knowledge of the portion of English being discussed.
If you're going to be ignorant, try not to be authoritative as well. It's quite possibly the worst potential combination of attributes that you can find in a human.
It is widely accepted by people who agree with the Social Justice philosophy, but that doesn't mean that it disqualifies all definitions that came before it.
What is widely accepted is that judging someone based solely on race or thinking they are inferior solely because of race is, by definition, racism. Whatever else may be said, this is the basic fact of the matter.
I tend to agree. Thankfully, most regular people that I talk to outside of forums full of political philosophy junkies are still on board with the traditional definition of racism. And I would be thankful for this even if I didn't find most of Social Justice's premises to be insane and/or hateful. Whether I'm on board or not, -NO- controversial political movement should be given license to remake the very language of a society to fit their narrative. Especially when the obvious result is to create a hostile group binary between racists (whites) and everyone else.
Maybe I'm just ignorant, but I can't think of one single historical example where dividing a nation into two groups and then training those groups to believe that one group is being victimized by the other in perpetuity, has ever led to anything positive. Or led to anything that wasn't fucking horrific. The only thing I wonder about this social justice racism narrative is, if/when it reaches critical mass, which group will be the Hutu and which will be the Tutsi?
See, this is exactly where I get suspicious of your objection to Gonzalo's and what you call the "social justice" definition of racism. There is an agenda here that is ridiculous in the extreme.
Do you really honestly believe that the "hostile group binary" was created by black activists and the white liberals who are willing to listen to them? No. That hostile group binary is very much true, but it was not created by pointing out that racism still exists. Ignoring it will not make it go away either.
By quibbling over the definition of racist/racism you are hoping to do the typical finger pointing at the other side (well, you're a racist, too, so we're even/the argument is null and void). That's not even a valid argument in itself, but that's what this whole exhausting quibble over what racist means is all about.
I'm using the royal "you."
4 'Reverse Racism' Myths That Need To Stop | Huffington Post
7 reasons why reverse racism doesn't exist
Racism requires power and privelege to exist.
People of color do not have any power or privilege in this white dominated society. This is shown by the fact that people of color are FAR more likely to be sentenced to prison while whites get off on plea deals for the same exact crimes.
Sure, there may be a few rich people of color in this country, but even the richest African American in the US still gets racially profiled by police. Even Senator Tim Scott (who is a Republican, by the way) has openly talked about being profiled by police for his skin color. Even President Obama, back when he was a senator, used to see people lock their car doors as he walked by, showing that people of color in all walks of life still face plenty of hate and discrimination.
Because racism requires power and privelege, and since whites are the only racial group with institutional power and privelege in this country, only whites can be racist. Saying that racism against whites exists is like saying 2 plus 2 equals 800. It's just not factually possible.
And don't try to give me any bullshit from the oxford dictionary or webster dictionary about what their definition of racism is. These dictionaries were written by old white men who never experienced racism in their lives, and therefore should not be trusted to provide an accurate, unbiased definition of the word.
Regardless of any actions, behavior, or ideas they might do or hold, a person of color simply CANNOT be racist. Period. Fact. End of statement.4 'Reverse Racism' Myths That Need To Stop | Huffington Post
7 reasons why reverse racism doesn't exist
Racism requires power and privelege to exist.
People of color do not have any power or privilege in this white dominated society. This is shown by the fact that people of color are FAR more likely to be sentenced to prison while whites get off on plea deals for the same exact crimes.
Sure, there may be a few rich people of color in this country, but even the richest African American in the US still gets racially profiled by police. Even Senator Tim Scott (who is a Republican, by the way) has openly talked about being profiled by police for his skin color. Even President Obama, back when he was a senator, used to see people lock their car doors as he walked by, showing that people of color in all walks of life still face plenty of hate and discrimination.
Because racism requires power and privelege, and since whites are the only racial group with institutional power and privelege in this country, only whites can be racist. Saying that racism against whites exists is like saying 2 plus 2 equals 800. It's just not factually possible.
And don't try to give me any bullshit from the oxford dictionary or webster dictionary about what their definition of racism is. These dictionaries were written by old white men who never experienced racism in their lives, and therefore should not be trusted to provide an accurate, unbiased definition of the word.
What a fucking retard.
As a person of color, I, by definition, CANNOT be racist, just like dogs can't speak French or the sky can't rain meatballs.Youre a person of color, and youre a racist. Your existence contradicts your claim. Youre also stupid enough to try and redefine common words. Are you on crack bitch? Youre goin nowhere with that bullshit. Maybe you can talk a couple of your broke ass friends into believing your nonsense, but everyone else thinks youre a fucktard.See, the difference between you and me is that I respect low wage workers in this country, and treat them with respect an dignity.You can make up any definition you want, but it wont change anything. Everyone knows what a racist is, and those who dont are looked at as stupid people. Youre a racist and you know youre a racist, hence the reason why you want to redefine the word so that it excludes you. It wont work dummy.And don't try to give me any bullshit from the oxford dictionary or webster dictionary about what their definition of racism is. These dictionaries were written by old white men who never experienced racism in their lives, and therefore should not be trusted to provide an accurate, unbiased definition of the word.
How about you shut your dumbass up and make sure to smile the next time i order a Quarter Pounder meal from you because, if i see any behavior i dont like, ill report you to your manager.
Also, people of color cannot be racist. The REAL definition of racism tells us that racism requires power and privelege, and people of color have neither power nor privelege.
What a fucking retard.
YOU are a racist, you hate others based on the color of their skin.
You can't lie reality out of existence, Comrade, regardless of what the Soros hate sites tell you.
