And once again, this is complete nonsense. There is no such thing as an inviolate sociological definition.pic.twitter.com/ZGFtadbwje
-
-
Replying to @PhilosophyExp
His definition doesn't even defend his point. If "prejudice" > 0 then "racism" > 0, unless "power" is negative...
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @SIN_Notung @PhilosophyExp
If in China, where white people wield no pwer and started using racial slurs, does that mean I not being racist?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Precisely. Here's a short post I wrote on this subject. http://www.skepticink.com/flyingscotsman/2015/08/07/pseudo-liberals-check-your-understanding-of-privilege/ …
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
People who invent such hard and fast rules are rarely correct as your analogy shows.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
It's not about whether a definition is "correct" - you can define things how you like - it's...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PhilosophyExp @Humanisticus and
about (a) it's theoretico-logical coherence; (b) it's utility; & (c) scope. The problem here is
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PhilosophyExp @Humanisticus and
the insistence (a) that there is a definitive sociological definition; (b) that this somehow...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PhilosophyExp @Humanisticus and
magically fixes the meaning of the term so that all other usages are incorrect.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
.........that's what I said. :)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
You were my inspiration! :)
2:07 PM - 6 Aug 2016
0 replies
0 retweets
0 likes
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.