4 ms·

This is just an endless cycle. Any language is going to need a word that roughly corresponds to "supremacy." If the word supremacy didn't exist, white supremaci

This is just an endless cycle. Any language is going to need a word that roughly corresponds to "supremacy." If the word supremacy didn't exist, white supremacists would have used some other word like "white dominance" so then we would be having a conversation about banning the word dominance. But then, the language is still going to need to have a word meaning "better than everything else" so we will just end up creating a new word. And then maybe that will get used in some unsavory context, so we ban that word. And so on and so forth. This exact cycle is happening after we banned the term "mental retardation." Now you hear people, who would have called someone "retarded," calling people "autistic." Pretty soon we'll have to ban the word autistic. But we'll still need a word to describe people with what we currently call intellectual disability. It will never end. The banning of words and the creation of new words to replace them. Words have no meaning outside of the context they are used. They're just phonemes or character strings without context.

mc32 7y ago
I think that [x]-supremacists don’t use the label for themselves. It’s usually applied to such groups as a descriptor by people who watch those groups like law enforcement and civil groups who monitor groups that espouse those ideologies, but I’m not sure the groups in question use those words to describe themselves.
- lisper 7y ago
  Yes, you've hit the nail on the head here. Some of them will refer to the "white power" movement, a term which they appropriated from "black power". Because if "black power" is OK, why not "white power"? This is the thing that drives me absolutely bananas about the Left: they think they're so smart, but they don't even understand what game they are playing, and as a result the Right runs roughshod over them simply by being masters of the language. How could any reasonable person possibly object to, say, "making America great again"?
  - trianglem 7y ago
    Because it implies America is not as great as it used to be when for a vast majority of minorities and women, it’s never been better.
    - mc32 7y ago
      I think an issue is a difference or dichotomy in perceived symbology. For many people it means progressive economic growth and certainty. For some people it’s negatively interpreted as a return to regressive social policies. For most people (but not all) elections are about pocket/kitchen table issues. Anti/globalization is about the impact on household economics, primarily (a minority about wealth transfer, pollution and other secondary issues.)
    - lisper 7y ago
      And here you have walked straight into the trap. If you are an uneducated white male who has been unemployed since the steel factory went under, the economic ascendancy of women and minorities is not a measure of the country's greatness, it is a symptom of its moral decay. Our infrastructure is crumbling. Our military is impotent. Our factories are shuttered. Why? Because of affirmative action, which propels people into positions they are not competent to hold simply because they lack a Y chromosome or have dark skin. It's such an obviously stupid policy. It amplifies incompetence, and today we are paying the price. (Please note: this is not my point of view. I'm channeling the Right simply to demonstrate how their rhetorical techniques work.)
      - trianglem 7y ago
        It’s not really effective in my opinion because for someone to gain power, someone’s got to give up some and no one wants that. So it’s going to have to be a continuous battle.
    - coldtea 7y ago
      For a vast majority of minorities and women, it’s never been better regarding sex preferences and racism. Which are a part of life, but not 100% of it. It still worse off for a vast majority of people (including minorities and women) in many areas - financially, loneliness/lack of community, ruthless commercialism, neglected towns/infrastructure, rising healthcare/education/housing costs, shitty work conditions, etc. You can be both black (and better off as black) or gay (and better of as gay) and still be in a shitty job, in a broken community, in dire financial situation, worse neighbourhood, etc compared to people in previous decades.
kgwgk 7y ago
> people with what we currently call intellectual disability. You’re a bit behind the times, we call those people “differently abled” nowadays. (Or maybe there is a new word and I’m “retarded”).

mc32 7y ago

I think that [x]-supremacists don’t use the label for themselves. It’s usually applied to such groups as a descriptor by people who watch those groups like law enforcement and civil groups who monitor groups that espouse those ideologies, but I’m not sure the groups in question use those words to describe themselves.

lisper 7y ago
Yes, you've hit the nail on the head here. Some of them will refer to the "white power" movement, a term which they appropriated from "black power". Because if "black power" is OK, why not "white power"? This is the thing that drives me absolutely bananas about the Left: they think they're so smart, but they don't even understand what game they are playing, and as a result the Right runs roughshod over them simply by being masters of the language. How could any reasonable person possibly object to, say, "making America great again"?
- trianglem 7y ago
  Because it implies America is not as great as it used to be when for a vast majority of minorities and women, it’s never been better.
  - mc32 7y ago
    I think an issue is a difference or dichotomy in perceived symbology. For many people it means progressive economic growth and certainty. For some people it’s negatively interpreted as a return to regressive social policies. For most people (but not all) elections are about pocket/kitchen table issues. Anti/globalization is about the impact on household economics, primarily (a minority about wealth transfer, pollution and other secondary issues.)
  - lisper 7y ago
    And here you have walked straight into the trap. If you are an uneducated white male who has been unemployed since the steel factory went under, the economic ascendancy of women and minorities is not a measure of the country's greatness, it is a symptom of its moral decay. Our infrastructure is crumbling. Our military is impotent. Our factories are shuttered. Why? Because of affirmative action, which propels people into positions they are not competent to hold simply because they lack a Y chromosome or have dark skin. It's such an obviously stupid policy. It amplifies incompetence, and today we are paying the price. (Please note: this is not my point of view. I'm channeling the Right simply to demonstrate how their rhetorical techniques work.)
    - trianglem 7y ago
      It’s not really effective in my opinion because for someone to gain power, someone’s got to give up some and no one wants that. So it’s going to have to be a continuous battle.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    For a vast majority of minorities and women, it’s never been better regarding sex preferences and racism. Which are a part of life, but not 100% of it. It still worse off for a vast majority of people (including minorities and women) in many areas - financially, loneliness/lack of community, ruthless commercialism, neglected towns/infrastructure, rising healthcare/education/housing costs, shitty work conditions, etc. You can be both black (and better off as black) or gay (and better of as gay) and still be in a shitty job, in a broken community, in dire financial situation, worse neighbourhood, etc compared to people in previous decades.

kgwgk 7y ago

> people with what we currently call intellectual disability. You’re a bit behind the times, we call those people “differently abled” nowadays. (Or maybe there is a new word and I’m “retarded”).