Skip to main content

View Diary: Why there's no such thing as "Reverse Racism" (169 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Definitions evolve and change all the time (0+ / 0-)

    and unless you want to argue for some "natural" evolution of word meanings, they change because there is some sort of pressure on them. Often those pressures come from the academy, which is, after all, the way that "racism" even entered the American vocabulary. It was an academic term.

    If you can't understand the need to refine and correct definitions, you're missing the point of a whole lot of scholarship.

    It's sort of like claiming that a dictionary definition of PTSD somehow supersedes the ongoing discussion between psychologists. Yes, the term "PTSD" has entered popular discourse, but that doesn't mean everyone is using it correctly, or that psychologists haven't reached an understanding of PTSD that is more advanced than the "common definition."

    •  Sure, but when you twist the definition (0+ / 0-)

      to fit your own narrow, political, ethno-centric purposes, then you're just not playing fair, and are not really contributing much to the discussion.

      •  Gah this is boring... (0+ / 0-)

        The definition I use is widely accepted by social scientists, and used by virtually all social scientists who actually study race.  If that's "twisting" then I guess the expertise of climate scientists who insist on the correct definition of and understanding of "global warming" are "twisting" too.  At least that's what Republicans would say, and you're using their tactics.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site