What's new

The United States is NOT a democracy and never was

The popular fashion to redefine terms to make it fit the result you want is a thing that doesn't sit well with me at all. It has been around for a while but really gained traction around 2016 with the push to redefine racism as power + prejudice so that racist AF hustlers who happen to be ethnic minorities can't be labeled as racist. The popular thing was to dismiss dictionaries and say "sociologists define racism as...". It wasn't true and if you have a sociology text from before 2015 they define racism as prejudice against an ethnic group. Almost overnight all the sociology texts were rewritten to encompass the new P+P=R definition. It worked so well that now the tactic is used for everything including what constitutes a recession and what constitutes a republic.

Speaks of being against redining things and at the same time redifines words from the dictionary the way he wants lol.


Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app
 
... as North Korea is a republic.
This speaks volumes to what you want our government to be.

It is a sad reality that the 2+2=5 crowd
Creationists?

... we can't agree on what a woman is,
The term "woman" has always carried social expectations and understandings.

or what violence is,
Right-wingers seem to think violence is when they criticized on the internet, but not when they attach protestors with metal batons.

or what constitutes a riot,
Right-wingers seem to think the Jan. 6 mob was not a riot.

and now they're going to work on what a recession is.
Recessions have always been declared by the NBER, and have no simple, set definition.


If you took political science more than a decade ago, that is not the definition for republic you will find in your text.
Was 1828 less than ten years ago?


REPUB'LIC, noun [Latin respublica; res and publica; public affairs.]

1. A commonwealth; a state in which the exercise of the sovereign power is lodged in representatives elected by the people. In modern usage, it differs from a democracy or democratic state, in which the people exercise the powers of sovereignty in person. Yet the democracies of Greece are often called republics.

2. Common interest; the public. [Not in use.]

Republic of letters, the collective body of learned men.
 
The popular fashion to redefine terms to make it fit the result you want is a thing that doesn't sit well with me at all.
Then stop redefining what "republic" has meant for the last 200 years.

It has been around for a while but really gained traction around 2016 with the push to redefine racism as power + prejudice
Just on this site in General Discussion, you see discussions on this very topic from a few years before that.

so that racist AF hustlers who happen to be ethnic minorities can't be labeled as racist.
I label such people as racist all the time. Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Jesse Lee Peterson, etc.

It wasn't true and if you have a sociology text from before 2015 they define racism as prejudice against an ethnic group.
You're off by at least 30 years.
 
Here is a rundown of all the sociology texts one guy could find on how they define racism:



Augie Fleras (who has publications dating back to 1985), says Race and Racism: A Comparative Perspective (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1967) was "was included in the reading list of my first undergraduate course on Race and Ethnicity", which would date the concept of racism as a social structure in undergraduate texts to the 1980s at the latest.

Do you ever get tired of receiving false/misleading information from your sources?
 

Augie Fleras (who has publications dating back to 1985), says Race and Racism: A Comparative Perspective (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1967) was "was included in the reading list of my first undergraduate course on Race and Ethnicity", which would date the concept of racism as a social structure in undergraduate texts to the 1980s at the latest.

Do you ever get tired of receiving false/misleading information from your sources?
Of course racism is a social structure you great mover of goal posts. The point was defining racism as power plus prejudice. Pull a quote from your 1967 textbook saying power plus prejudice is racism.
 
Last edited:
Of course racism is a social structure you great mover of goal posts. The point was defining racism as power plus privilege.
Explain how "racism is a social structure" and "racism as power plus privilege" read differently to you, please. To me, they are effectively the same. You don't have one without the other.

Pull a quote from your 1967 textbook saying power plus privilege is racism.
First, pull a quote from a textbook after 2000 saying "power plus privilege is racism". If you can't find it, why should I be able to in earlier books?

Let me help you find a few texts (including a couple after 2020), note they all define racism (as both personal and institutional) pretty much the same way whether from 2005 or 2021:
https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/11-3-prejudice-discrimination-and-racism -- After 2020

https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1174&context=qb_oers -- After 2020





 
Let me help you find a few texts (including a couple after 2020), note they all define racism (as both personal and institutional) pretty much the same way whether from 2005 or 2021:
They definitely do not define racism the same way before and after 2016. Every single one of your sources with a copyright before 2016 use the traditional definition to the effect of discrimination based on race. Every single one of your sources with copyrights after 2016 add in a hierarchical component to indicate racism can only be exhibited by a dominant or majority group and therefore members of minority groups cannot be racist.

Let's run down your list with the post-2016 entries in purple and the pre-2016 entries in green. First up is a post-2016 entry:
...and here is what this post-2016 text says defines racicm:
it is a set of practices used by a racial dominant group to maximize advantages for itself by disadvantaging racial minority groups.
It is a post-2016 text and includes the power component as is the current fashion. Next up:
...and here is what this copyright 2021 text says defines racicm:
Racism is also a set of practices used by a racial majority group to disadvantage a racial minority group.
It is a post-2016 text and includes the power component as is the current fashion. Next you listed this link:
This link didn't work for me. If you can pull up the relevant section and the copyright I'm confident you'll find that if the copyright is before 2016 the definition won't mention dominant or majority while if it is after 2016 it will.

Next up:
...and here is what this post-2016 text says defines racicm:
takes many forms, including avoiding social contact with members of minority groups, denying them positions that carry authority and blocking their access to the more exclusive neighborhoods. It can also involve such extremes as attacking or killing minority members.
It is a post-2016 source and here again is hierarchical qualifier language to justify the idea members of minority groups cannot be racist.

Next up is a text from BEFORE 2016 and the hierarchical qualifier language is not there. This isn't the best example and I know some of you will twist some of these words into hierarchical qualifier language but it isn't and I'll give you an example of why but I wanted to include it so that it didn't look like I was ducking any examples.
...and here is what this 2011 text says defines racicm:
An important concept based on race is racism. Racism exists at two levels—individual and institutional. At the individual level, racism is the belief that some racial groups are naturally superior and others are inferior.
Prior to being confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice, Sonia Sotomayor gave a speech in which she said “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” By the definition here in this text, that is a racist statement because it asserts a believe that a racial demographic is superior, but by the definitions in the post-2016 texts it is not racism because Sonia Sotomayor is a member of a minority group and therefor cannot be racist even if she expresses idea of racial superiority for her ethnic group. That is the difference between pre-2016 definitions and post-2016 definitions.

Next is an example from 2013:
...and here is what this pre-2016 text says defines racicm:
an action—unfair treatment directed against someone. Discrimination can be based on many characteristics: age, sex, height, weight, skin color, clothing, speech, income, education, marital status, sexual orientation, disease, disability, religion, and politics. When the basis of discrimination is someone’s perception of race, it is known as racism.
Hierarchical qualifier language is entirely missing exactly as it is for every pre-2016 text I've seen. Member of racial minority groups could be considered racist if they did racist things.

Lastly, we have another example from 2013:
...and here is what this pre-2016 text says defines racicm:
Racism is a type of prejudice that involves set beliefs about a specific racial group.
As expected, there is no hierarchical qualifier language in this pre-2016 definition of racism.

If you pull a definition of racism from your 1967 textbook, it will not have the hierarchical qualifier language included now in post-2016 definitions of racism. Normally a person proven so completely wrong using his own sources would say "That is interesting. I'd not noticed that before and can see the point you were trying to make" but I know you so spin away and drag the goalposts across the field.
 
This is a master-class in using a straw man to deflect from a losing argument. This all started as defining what a republic is. Now it is an in-depth discussion about the meaning of "is" in relation to the definition of racism in colonial America. Hat's off, that is pretty slick.
 
They definitely do not define racism the same way before and after 2016. Every single one of your sources with a copyright before 2016 use the traditional definition to the effect of discrimination based on race.
Every single book before 2016 described both personal racism and institutional/systemic racism. Every book after 2016 also described both personal racism and institutional/systemic racism. Nothing in any text said that minority people can't be personally racist. Did you think I didn't actually read this stuff before I linked it?

Every single one of your sources with copyrights after 2016 add in a hierarchical component to indicate racism can only be exhibited by a dominant or majority group and therefore members of minority groups cannot be racist.

Let's run down your list with the post-2016 entries in purple and the pre-2016 entries in green. First up is a post-2016 entry:
It's definition of racism:
Racism is a stronger type of prejudice and discrimination used to justify inequalities against individuals by maintaining that one racial category is somehow superior or inferior to others; it is a set of practices used by a racial dominant group to maximize advantages for itself by disadvantaging racial minority groups.
Two definitions joined by a semi-colon. One definition for personal racism, a second definition that involves heirarchies.



...and here is what this post-2016 text says defines racicm:
This was utterly false, and makes you out to be such an incompetent reader that you don't understand when a textbook is offering a definition, or such a liar that you don't care about spreading easily disproven falsehoods.

...and here is what this copyright 2021 text says defines racicm:
Full quote:
While prejudice is not necessarily specific to race, racism is a strong type of prejudice; one used to justify the belief that humans are subdivided into groups that are different in their social behavior and innate capacities and that can be ranked hierarchically.

Racism is also a set of practices used by a racial majority group to disadvantage a racial minority group. Institutional racism refers to the way in which racism is embedded in the fabric of society. For example, the disproportionate number of black men arrested, charged, and convicted of crimes may reflect racial profiling, a form of institutional racism.
Both definitions, as I stated, and note the individual definition is the one that is bolded. Again, this makes you look either incompetent or utterly dishonest. At least, I no longer question whether you are bothered when your sources lie to you. You just don't care.



This link didn't work for me. If you can pull up the relevant section and the copyright I'm confident you'll find that if the copyright is before 2016 the definition won't mention dominant or majority while if it is after 2016 it will.
For completeness,
While prejudice is not necessarily specific to race, racism is a stronger type of prejudice used to justify the belief that one racial category is somehow superior or inferior to others; it is also a set of practices used by a racial majority to disadvantage a racial minority
Again, both personal and hierarchical definitions. Reading this definition, can you guess if it is pre-2016 or post-2016?



Next up:

...and here is what this post-2016 text says defines racicm:

It is a post-2016 source and here again is hierarchical qualifier language to justify the idea members of minority groups cannot be racist.
I'm not sure how you can identify the year, but you obviously can't identify the passage on page 11 where racism is actually defined:
[Prejudice] refers to widely held pre-conceptions of a group (majority or minority) and it's individual members.
Further down on page 11:
Racism is an extreme form of prejudice, because it not only involves judging other people unfairly, but it assumes that a person's own race or ethnic group is superior.
Here the part you quoted, with the correct initial word, from page 12.
Discrimination takes many forms, including avoiding social contact with members of minority groups, denying them positions that carry authority and blocking their access to the more exclusive neighborhoods. It can also involve such extremes as attacking or killing minority members.
I don't see any way you can convincingly state that you didn't see the first word of the sentence you cut off was "discrimination" as opposed to "racism". You're just a liar. Works for me.




Next up is a text from BEFORE 2016 and the hierarchical qualifier language is not there.
Your own quoted divided it into personal and institutional racism. You did my work for me.


That is the difference between pre-2016 definitions and post-2016 definitions.
Actually, that statement (if sincerely meant) is personally racist by any definition offered above.




Next is an example from 2013:
From the glossary of this book:
racism prejudice and discrimination on the basis of race
Again, both definitions. Also:
Convinced that research should have the goal of improving social life, others focus on the social arrangements that harm people—poverty, crime, racism, sexism, war, and other forms of human exploitation.




Lastly, we have another example from 2013:
Savind the very best for last, we have:
However, discrimination cannot be erased from our culture just by enacting laws to abolish it. Even if a magic pill managed to eradicate racism from each individual’s psyche, society itself would maintain it. Sociologist Émile Durkheim called racism “a social fact,” meaning that it does not require the action of individuals to continue (1895). The reasons for this are complex and relate to the educational, criminal, economic, and political systems that exist.
So, the notions of racial hierarchy and power structures are some 120 years older than you claim, back to the one of the founders of sociology as a scientific discipline.

If you pull a definition of racism from your 1967 textbook, it will not have the hierarchical qualifier language included now in post-2016 definitions of racism.
I've demonstrated that the same basic definitions and concepts appear pre- and post-2016, and you've demonstrated you'll lie your *** off to pretend otherwise.


Normally a person proven so completely wrong using his own sources would say "That is interesting. I'd not noticed that before and can see the point you were trying to make" but I know you so spin away and drag the goalposts across the field.
No spin needed. You utterly failed, and lied so egregiously that I see no point in continuing this discussion.

You need to seriously consider your moral compass here. You're so desperate to be proven right you'll brazenly lie. It's not healthy for you.
 
This is a master-class in using a straw man to deflect from a losing argument. This all started as defining what a republic is. Now it is an in-depth discussion about the meaning of "is" in relation to the definition of racism in colonial America. Hat's off, that is pretty slick.
Yet, he still managed to make himself look only worse, exposing his willingness to blatantly lie.
 
If we aren’t a democracy then is this a republic? What is Wisconsin?

How is entrenched political power by gerrymandered maps and partisan judges representing voters? And how to voters break this entrenched power? What is the incentive for one political party to moderate and compete in the marketplace of ideas if they don’t have to in order to obtain a supermajority of power?


View: https://twitter.com/jbouie/status/1585625814401536001?s=46&t=Lz4QtGIIg_ANpam6ENzLuQ
 
Top