Saturday, January 1, 2022

By Definition

[Author’s Note: Before I begin today’s scree, let me start by saying I’m not on anyone’s side. Most likely I am opposed to whatever insane, cockamamie ideas you have. Well, maybe not ALL of them, but probably most of them. For example, while I take aim at the Woke Mob today, this does not mean I am on the side of right-wing Republicans who are, by-and-large, pretty big assholes. I’m on the side of reason, thought, and interesting discourse. If you’re not on the side of these things, you, too, are probably an asshole. Only, what defines an asshole…]

 

I should have known better than to get into a Twitter spat with a Woke Mobster. Much like your average Trump cultist, there is no reasoning with them. Much like that average Trump cultist, the Woke Mob operates on pure emotion and this is why there is no reasoning with them.

 

See, I made the white man’s mistake of pointing out that a Woke Mobster’s definition of ‘racism’ was being redefined for the sake of convenience in propping up the alt-Left’s narrative, a narrative in which they intimate that only white people can be racist. The mobster in question, allegedly a doctor (a term which used to presume a certain level of intelligence along with it), went so far as to say that white people invented racism. Of course, they couldn’t say where or when this happened probably because this alleged fact was in fact not a fact.

 

Now I’m not going to sit here like your average Trump cultist and tell you systematic racism hasn’t existed in the U.S. since its inception. Yes, some groups of white people in the U.S. have been guilty of oppressing people of color for two-plus centuries. Naturally, while the Woke Mob recognizes this, they neglect to notice that other groups of white people have been instrumental in advancing rights for people of color. To be sure, more effort is needed to make people of color truly equal in the U.S. among the predominately ‘white culture.’ The problem is, in the Woke Mob’s narrative, because of the oppression people of color have suffered, all white people and all their institutions are oppressors and it cannot be the case that white people cannot be racist. It is understandable that unfair treatment might result in this kind of mindset, but this is unreasonable thinking nonetheless. To actually point this unreasonableness, though, is only more proof of the white man’s racism. But what is racism?

 

As philosophers do, we should agree on our definitions before proceeding. Per Merriam-Webster’s definition* which has been the definition of racism for, I don’t know, a while now, “1-Unfair treatment of people of a particular race in a society to the benefit of people of another race (and) 2-The belief that certain races of people are superior to others.” This as opposed to a Woke Mobster’s definition which in not so unsimilar and goes something like this, “The systematic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of [white people].” The latter of these two definitions is the only one that will suffice for the Woke Mob since it excludes any group besides white people from being racist. This has to be the case because, as everyone knows, all other races around the globe treat each other with nothing but dignity and respect. Nevermind the hatred between the Chinese and Japanese. Nevermind Africa being the epicenter of genocides in the modern age. There’s nothing to see here.

 

[*I was challenged on this, my opponent asking me if I was going by Webster’s definition. Well, yes, I was. However, because Merriam-Webster was compiled by white men one assumes, the definition is not to be trusted, obviously.]

 

And so because I, as the white man in the conversation, was wrong by virtue of my existence. For this to be the case – forgive my poor white man’s ignorance – seems kinda racist, at least according to Merriam-Webster. Ah, but since white people hold most of the power in the U.S. I can’t be oppressed on an individual, much less societal, level. That’s the way the Left’s narrative goes, so it seems.

 

What would be interesting is to peer into the future and see the U.S. being headed by people of color – that day is coming – and see whether the Woke Mob’s current definition of racism holds. According to the logic, it shouldn’t if people of color wield most of the power in the country. In fact, according to the logic, it would only be people of color who could be racist then. But, you just can’t expect people who operate solely on emotion to conduct these kinds of thought experiments much less come to that conclusion.

 

It should not be forgotten that racism is an act, not an objective object that exists when no one is around. As such, anyone or any group can be racist, unless you change the definition to suit your narrative as the Woke Mob has done. Unfortunately, words are fluid in definition (and even spelling and pronunciation). Case in point, the word ‘literally’ literally no longer means ‘literally’ when used by lay people, and this is very sad. The same could be said of the word ‘theory’ when used by a scientist as opposed to the common citizen who doesn’t understand anything about science. But I digress; it is a time-honored tradition of Sophists to change definitions to win arguments. There’s not much that can be done about that unless we all start talking mathematics.

 

It should also not be forgotten that it was the philosophy of (mostly) old-timey European white men that argued for the equal treatment of all people. (To be fair, by ‘all people’ they were largely referring to ‘people’ who were only ‘people’ because they had dicks. It’s a matter of definition that was convenient for men at the time.) If not for those philosophers, the Woke Mob would not even be in a position to voice their displeasure about their systematic oppression. No other philosophers from any other continent or culture argued so fiercely for equal rights. I’M NOT SAYING people of color should be undyingly thankful to those philosophers but history is what it is. And, yes, I know that as a white man that’s easy for me to say.

 

Now, before any of this goes any further or before I get cancelled, let us argue over the definition of ‘definition.’ I’ll pour us some whiskey. Or is it ‘whisky’? Fuck.

No comments: