I think one way we can reclaim our power from lefty verbal obfuscationists is to start defining what we mean at the start. Like M could say, "I define prejudice as blah blah blah and racism as blah blah blah and this is what separates the two. We don't have to demand that everyone accept our definitions, but we can lay it out and use the…
I think one way we can reclaim our power from lefty verbal obfuscationists is to start defining what we mean at the start. Like M could say, "I define prejudice as blah blah blah and racism as blah blah blah and this is what separates the two. We don't have to demand that everyone accept our definitions, but we can lay it out and use them with our verbal adversaries and not let them misuse the words when they're talking to *us*. "No, what you're talking about is *prejudice*, not racism. There's a difference." We don't have to let them set or play by the rules; we create our own and stick to them ourselves. This is the same sort of crap you get with the woman/transwoman debate or in feminism, what constitutes sexual assault or rape. And silence isn't violence, and if you think so you don't know what violence is. But it is *complicity* in violence and that's a critically important moral crime and distinction. I won't lump in the 'good little German' civilians in with the Nazis who committed the actual violence against others, but I will hold them accountable for letting it happen, just as I'm now holding Americans accountable for the state of the country.
Re BLM & the missing funds: My ex-partner was a reporter and journalist who'd once done an investigative story on charities and non-profits, and he found a high percentage of fraud and sticky fingers in the industry, like around 50%. He said you have to be very careful about charities as you never know where the money is actually going. Sure, there are administrative costs & salaries to pay, but when the money rolls in good charities, good people can suddenly be tempted and then justify to themselves why they're doing what they're doing. this is what happened to Christian televangelists who famously live pretty high off the hog on the donations and 'love offerings' or whatever that roll in from gullible viewers. I interned at a Christian TV station for two summers in college and I saw how this worked and I was appalled. I can't say they were misusing the funds but one guy was definitely feeding people horse shit to get them to send more money, and I'd see the cheques come in where the people were saying, "I'm an old lady on a limited income but I can give you this one or two dollars." Or "I can't give much because my medication is very expensive but here's a dollar or two."
Before you give to any non-profit or charity, look at their financials. If they're not transparent, they don't get my money. Make sure your money is really going toward helping the people you want to help, and not lining the pockets of the senior managers. Not surprised that BLM has become as corrupted by The Cause as so many others have.
> Like M could say, "I define prejudice as blah blah blah and racism as blah blah blah and this is what separates the two."
Small suggestion: "In this conversation, I will use 'prejudice' to mean ...."
That is, it can help to be explicit that in using a provided definition, one is not trying to sneakily win the society wide contest over definitions, nor to compel others, but only seeking to be clear about one's own speech.
That a key difference between using definitions as underhanded weapons (either to win "by definition", or to obfuscate and confuse any pushback), and using them to facilitate good faith communications.
Nonsense. "Prejudice" means "to judge before," meaning making presumptions about someone based on physical characteristics and not actually knowing. Black man in a dark suit? Must be a security guard. Can't be anyone important.
I think one way we can reclaim our power from lefty verbal obfuscationists is to start defining what we mean at the start. Like M could say, "I define prejudice as blah blah blah and racism as blah blah blah and this is what separates the two. We don't have to demand that everyone accept our definitions, but we can lay it out and use them with our verbal adversaries and not let them misuse the words when they're talking to *us*. "No, what you're talking about is *prejudice*, not racism. There's a difference." We don't have to let them set or play by the rules; we create our own and stick to them ourselves. This is the same sort of crap you get with the woman/transwoman debate or in feminism, what constitutes sexual assault or rape. And silence isn't violence, and if you think so you don't know what violence is. But it is *complicity* in violence and that's a critically important moral crime and distinction. I won't lump in the 'good little German' civilians in with the Nazis who committed the actual violence against others, but I will hold them accountable for letting it happen, just as I'm now holding Americans accountable for the state of the country.
Re BLM & the missing funds: My ex-partner was a reporter and journalist who'd once done an investigative story on charities and non-profits, and he found a high percentage of fraud and sticky fingers in the industry, like around 50%. He said you have to be very careful about charities as you never know where the money is actually going. Sure, there are administrative costs & salaries to pay, but when the money rolls in good charities, good people can suddenly be tempted and then justify to themselves why they're doing what they're doing. this is what happened to Christian televangelists who famously live pretty high off the hog on the donations and 'love offerings' or whatever that roll in from gullible viewers. I interned at a Christian TV station for two summers in college and I saw how this worked and I was appalled. I can't say they were misusing the funds but one guy was definitely feeding people horse shit to get them to send more money, and I'd see the cheques come in where the people were saying, "I'm an old lady on a limited income but I can give you this one or two dollars." Or "I can't give much because my medication is very expensive but here's a dollar or two."
Before you give to any non-profit or charity, look at their financials. If they're not transparent, they don't get my money. Make sure your money is really going toward helping the people you want to help, and not lining the pockets of the senior managers. Not surprised that BLM has become as corrupted by The Cause as so many others have.
> Like M could say, "I define prejudice as blah blah blah and racism as blah blah blah and this is what separates the two."
Small suggestion: "In this conversation, I will use 'prejudice' to mean ...."
That is, it can help to be explicit that in using a provided definition, one is not trying to sneakily win the society wide contest over definitions, nor to compel others, but only seeking to be clear about one's own speech.
That a key difference between using definitions as underhanded weapons (either to win "by definition", or to obfuscate and confuse any pushback), and using them to facilitate good faith communications.
Nonsense. "Prejudice" means "to judge before," meaning making presumptions about someone based on physical characteristics and not actually knowing. Black man in a dark suit? Must be a security guard. Can't be anyone important.
That's what the word means.