Biden pick for AG for Civil Rights is a "Black Supremacist" and anti-Semite

[rogue06]

I have no doubt about that. It's just special pleading. In the least, SCOTUS recognised quotas were racist against white people in Regents of Univ. of Cal v Bakke.

The first law class I took in college (they weren't necessary for my major, I was just interested in them) I did a term paper on Bakke which had just been decided.

[Cow Poke]

I have no doubt about that. It's just special pleading. In the least, SCOTUS recognised quotas were racist against white people in Regents of Univ. of Cal v Bakke.

Which is why I got a boatload of cash for being passed over for the Sergeant exam, losing out to people far down the list.

(My best friend got catapulted to division Captain with his own firehouse, and a bunch of back pay)

[Cerebrum123]

I have no doubt about that. It's just special pleading. In the least, SCOTUS recognised quotas were racist against white people in Regents of Univ. of Cal v Bakke.

Racism is currently being redefined by sociologists in such a way that you can't ever be racist towards whatever group happens to be the majority. This redefinition has already made it into certain dictionaries.

[Diogenes]

Racism is currently being redefined by sociologists in such a way that you can't ever be racist towards whatever group happens to be the majority. This redefinition has already made it into certain dictionaries.

I'm not surprised, it still would be special pleading. Dictionaries aren't normative in their meanings but rather descriptive based on common usage. It's like people who argue that atheism is a lack of a belief as that's how dictionary defines it fail to understand that.

Here's a good description of the issue. This builds up to "That is, when it comes to correctness, there's no one in charge. The lunatics are running the asylum". It's about 2 minutes from where the link is time-stamped. The person speaking is Steven Pinker.

https://youtu.be/OV5J6BfToSw?t=2525

[Cow Poke]

...Dictionaries aren't normative in their meanings but rather descriptive based on common usage. ...

Excellent! Can I use that?

[Cerebrum123]

I'm not surprised, it still would be special pleading. Dictionaries aren't normative in their meanings but rather descriptive based on common usage. It's like people who argue that atheism is a lack of a belief as that's how dictionary defines it fail to understand that.

Here's a good description of the issue. This builds up to "That is, when it comes to correctness, there's no one in charge. The lunatics are running the asylum". It's about 2 minutes from where the link is time-stamped. The person speaking is Steven Pinker.

https://youtu.be/OV5J6BfToSw?t=2525

I agree it is special pleading. The problem is they are trying to conflate the new definition with the old. It certainly appears as if they are intentionally stoking the fires of conflict when they do so. This redefinition will inevitably cause major problems.

[Cow Poke]

I agree it is special pleading. The problem is they are trying to conflate the new definition with the old. It certainly appears as if they are intentionally stoking the fires of conflict when they do so. This redefinition will inevitably cause major problems.

It really seems that the publishers of the various dictionaries are in competition to be the wokest.

[Diogenes]

Excellent! Can I use that?

It's fact, so go ahead. Appealing to multiple people using a word with a specific meaning doesn't entail a word ought to used with that specific meaning. It's an ad populum. For example, there's nothing about light reflecting with a wavelength of 450–495 nm that entails "blueness". "Blue" is just a common reference to that wavelength. There's nothing incorrect about calling that wavelength range "green", you're just going to have problems communicating to others when there are linguistic conflicts.