The Anti-Defamation League Changed The Definition Of Racism

a reply to: infolurker


Of course. See the footer below!

They are the worst kind of people and in their arrogance they have no clue they are hemmoraging voters and allies, especially.latino, but ecen black that realize they are the true racists..Created.the kkk, ran the south, etc etc.

a reply to: infolurker

"The Anti-Defamation League Changed THEIR Definition Of Racism"

I fixed that↑ for you.

I don't know who the 'Anti-Defamation League' is, but I know they're not my go-to source for definitions.

I use Merriam-Webster, who (for now) still currently shows the #1 definition as:


"Definition of racism
1 : a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race"

a reply to: Madviking

He was generalizing about the commonly accepted theory of the times. When I think about it, Darwin was in the conversation, but not the subject, so it was likely he was talking in broad terms.

I remembered the conversation because I had never thought about the racist idea that black people are lower on the evolutionary scale and can serve as a living example of a transitional linking species. But then again I remember Fred Sanford on the TV Sit Com "Sanford and Son" telling Aunt Ester to use her face to make gorilla cookies, so maybe Aunt Ester is the missing link?

The murder of language is one of the most insidious ideas I've ever seen. It's particularly choice when a group who has their own language, religion and cultural identity decides to change other groups language to help leverage their own power. I suppose if you can buy out Webster's it's your economic privilege showing.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
The murder of language is one of the most insidious ideas I've ever seen. It's particularly choice when a group who has their own language, religion and cultural identity decides to change other groups language to help leverage their own power. I suppose if you can buy out Webster's it's your economic privilege showing.

Right, these progressives are changing definitions, then they try to force society to utilize these new definitions, and claim the changed definitions retroactively prove everything they are asserting.

For example, I had an online debate on this topic with people I knew, where they posted a thread to the effect of "Why do people claim minorities can be racist, when literally the definition is only white people can be racist because only white people have power + prejudice." Then I debated them for a while, and showed them the original definition. The individual acknowledged the new definition isn't the only one.

By the by, one of their arrows in their SJW quiver is "your original definition in the dictionary was written by old, racist white men so doesn't count."

It's like infrastructure, they redefine traditional "infrastructure" to mean all kinds of social investments too, then push a bill will all this pork barrel spending and earmarks, then claim people "are against investing in infrastructure." "WHY WON'T THEY PASS THE INFRASTRUCTURE BILL."

Simple:

Reject their reality as they define it.
Reject their narratives and institutions.
Reject their historical theories.

These theoretical frameworks are designed to align people’s perceptions of reality in such a way that obfuscates accountability for the injustices of the past and scapegoat an out group as the cause of all the problems and the system itself as the panacea. It’s “My Struggle” but for the modern audience.

The nice thing is that as these theories are promoted and internalized by the aristocracy, they will undo their ability to make sense of the world, making them less competitive.

At some point, there will be another Jonestown and all the moralists will have to find another PR-driven panic to freak out about. We’ll shed this woke nonsense for some new nonsense. Hopefully the new nonsense is more aligned with all of humanity, rather than a dying empire trying to save itself from killing itself by appearing to be the cure to the disease it caused.

History will not be written by these people.

-D

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

does it help if they were to clearly define in the definition of racism that races are actually biological fallacy
as race doesnt exist in terms of biology so their own definition by that logic is wrong as they use a fallacy to explain racism
therefore you cant actually be racist in biological terms
but you can in social cultural terms

then the whole idea of race itself is fallacy so why do we still support the idea of racism as a thing in of itself
when its a fallacy , are you not just a bigot then ?

yes it exists in culture and society in our lives ,but its all based on a fallacy the entire thing and all the racial stereotypes that came with it all based on lies.

Anyway maybe that should be added into the dictionary definition
that this word is Archaic because we have evidence which proves there are no races and so therefore race as a biological construct doesn't exist and all derivatives of race from the original biological idea of race , is based on fallacy and should be thought of as such

This is so sad, I can't do anything but laugh at the cognitive dissonance. The "Anti-Defamation League" just became the "Pro-Defamation League." Someday, probably well past my lifetime since this is becoming so deeply ingrained in society, society will look back on these times with the same utter disdain as we have today when looking back on slavery, witch trials, the Spanish Inquisition, etc. They will discuss on whatever social media exists theories on why the human race became so evil and ignorant.

Of course, that's assuming there will be a society capable of doing so. Every time I hear of something like this, I am reminded of a Bible verse... forgive me for inserting religion here, but it just so damn appropriate!

Mark 13:8

For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be earthquakes in divers places, and there shall be famines and troubles: these are the beginnings of sorrows.

The word translated as "nation" in that verse is the Greek ethnos, from which we get the words "ethnic" and "ethnicity"... in the vernacular: race shall rise against race.

It's going by the book, folks...



a reply to: TerryMcGuire

The definition of racism has not been changed, it has been more clearly defined.

How is it possible to "more clearly define" something without changing the definition?

Dude, you literally just said "The definition of racism has not been changed, it has just been changed."


TheRedneck

a reply to: sapien82

Yes, thank you.
I like the last thing that Dinnstar brings up in the post just prior to yours.

At some point, there will be another Jonestown and all the moralists will have to find another PR-driven panic to freak out about. We’ll shed this woke nonsense for some new nonsense. Hopefully the new nonsense is more aligned with all of humanity, rather than a dying empire trying to save itself from killing itself by appearing to be the cure to the disease it caused.

We do seem to be on some crazy kind of merry-go-round.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
The murder of language is one of the most insidious ideas I've ever seen. It's particularly choice when a group who has their own language, religion and cultural identity decides to change other groups language to help leverage their own power. I suppose if you can buy out Webster's it's your economic privilege showing.

You can't "murder language" you can only butcher your own credibility by speaking incoherently as a consequence. But there's a very specific audience being lectured on "new racism" and they aren't going anywhere, at least not yet. At what point do legal citizens get demoted to an inferior class based on their poor grasp of civics and anti-prejudice-which-is-still-kinda-prejudiced?

a reply to: TheRedneck

Maybe my mind is to simplistic.

The boy bounced the ball.
The little boy bounced the ball.
The little boy with red hair bounced the ball.
The little boy with red hair bounced the basketball
The little boy with red hair bounced the over inflated basketball
The little boy with red hair bounced the over inflated basket ball as hard as he could.

Now it does appear that this ''new'' definition of racism can be taken as a ''redefinition'' rather than merely an expansion as I suggested. An expansion that I can clearly see now was not enough of an expansion, and that seems to be the expressed contention here do to it appearing to have a specific bias.

Here is the original quote.

The marginalization and/or oppression of people of color based on a socially constructed racial hierarchy that privileges white people.

To get rid of that bias we need to further expand it's description.

'' The marginalization and /or oppression of people of ANY color based on a socially constructed racial hierarchy that privileges PEOPLE OF ANY COLOR, not being marginalized. That's about as broad and unbiased as I can do.

In these terms I can contend that..

I'm guessing that there are people who might be fearing being marginalized who may have once or still are in the grouping of those ''not being marginalized'' even though they themselves consider themselves to have not been ''those doing the marginalizing'' do to them not being aware that they themselves owe at least some of their ''not being marginalized ''to the socially constructed racial hierarchy that has been ''doing the marginalizing'' behind their backs.

Come on, Red, gimme a smile here, that sure was fun putting together though I lost count of how many times I had to correct my spelling of marginalize.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Do you think white people have been marginalized or oppressed in the last century of US history?

I don't care what anyone says. This is dumb. LOL. I see more racism towards white people than I do any other race and because of stupid definitions like this, they think it makes it OK to do.

Yes, White people can experience racism. If not, then take white off the list of races. They are either a race that can experience racism or they aren't a race and cant experience racism. Can't have it both ways.

a reply to: TzarChasmI see what you are doing here Tzar. You're attempting to get me to spell marginalize correctly some more. I'll bite.

I have to run with that ''socially constructed racial hierarchy'' bit or as I came to know it way back, institutional racism. As a late bloomer, I got into my trade in the late 70s. I say trade because for the most part, sheet metal work in the Bay Area was unionized. My uncle, who had been in the union since WWII called me and told me that the union apprenticeship program was for the first time in a year or so, accepting applications from white people. Prior to that time the union had been completely comprised of white men, even women were not allowed in. Quotas were established to integrate the union with peoples of different colors and sexes and those quotas had been met.

The union had been forced to dismantle it's institutional racism. If telling some white people to allow people of color into their ranks is marginalizing then yes.

Here, from my observations this notion of socially constructed racial hierarchy has been re-constructed for the most part. Most part because again, from my observations it has been accomplished from the bottom of that hierarchy up. Workers, yes. Management, pretty much. Ownership? Well, that is the crux I think. It's in the ownership class that the economy rests. Those that reap the greatest profits from this system. Again, as I see it, that class is still very restrictive. Why? Because there is no one to force them to do so, it's their system. It's not the workers system and not the managers system, it's the owners system. And it ain't gonna change until I don't know when. Pretty much not going to change I think.

That's to narrow a vision I think, it's more complex than that but will have to do for now.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Come on, Red, gimme a smile here, that sure was fun putting together though I lost count of how many times I had to correct my spelling of marginalize.

Better?

Let's look at what you labelled an "expansion," shall we?

The original definition:

“Racism is the belief that a particular race is superior or inferior to another, that a person’s social and moral traits are predetermined by his or her inborn biological characteristics. Racial separatism is the belief, most of the time based on racism, that different races should remain segregated and apart from one another.”

The new definition:

"Racism: The marginalization and/or oppression of people of color based on a socially constructed racial hierarchy that privileges white people."

I'd say that is a bit different from your example of an "extension":

The boy bounced the ball.
The little boy bounced the ball.
The little boy with red hair bounced the ball.
The little boy with red hair bounced the basketball
The little boy with red hair bounced the over inflated basketball
The little boy with red hair bounced the over inflated basket ball as hard as he could.

The new definition is racist by the first definition... not sure how you don't see that. According to the new definition, skin color (race) determines one's social position (whether or not they are "racist").

I don't think your mind is simplistic; I think you know exactly what you were saying, but when I called your statement out for what it is you chose to try and do the backstroke. That's what I object to: intellectual dishonesty. The statement by the Pro-Defamation League is intellectually dishonest, and your support of that definition is intellectually dishonest.

I have no problem discussing the statements made, but I do expect you or anyone else involved in said discussion to be intellectually honest. It's OK with me if you want to take an opposing or even unpopular position; we live in a country where (supposedly) people are allowed to do that freely. But I do expect you or anyone else doing so to do so openly and be prepared to support that argument with resorting to dishonest tactics.



TheRedneck

a reply to: TzarChasm

Do you think white people have been marginalized or oppressed in the last century of US history?

Can I answer that? It will make a good segway into something that I think most people are ignoring on this issue.

Yes, some white people have been "marginalized" in society. I have, for one, in many ways. What, does anyone think in the 1970s I didn't have to be concerned about a beat-down by the cops during a traffic stop?

I will also admit that a black person in some areas and situations has a higher probability of being "marginalized."

The point I want to make, however, is that the solution is not to marginalize anyone... it is not to remove "white privilege," because "white privilege" is not the problem... the problem is the lack of privilege! Think about it... if someone is "marginalized" wouldn't their goal in life to not be "marginalized"? That's not what the Pro-Defamation League is trying to accomplish with this new definition! This new definition us trying to create more "marginalization" among more people, not less "marginalization" among less people.

We need to shift the parameters of the debate... it should not be about countering "white privilege"; it should be about extending "privilege" to all regardless of race.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

We need to shift the parameters of the debate... it should not be about countering "white privilege"; it should be about extending "privilege" to all regardless of race.

That's a good way to look at it.

That's what equality is all about right?

Making people more equal. Not less equal!

a reply to: TheRedneck

No dishonest tactics Red, just myopic. I took a moment to look up the older definition as well as reading the one you posted for me and found it a much better, fuller, and unbiased definition.

Thank you for your patience.

T

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Fair enough; thanks for taking a closer look.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

time to fall off and throw up

they had tune in and drop out

we have fall off and throw up

aww the best mate