1) Strict definition: An irrational bias towards members of a racial background. The bias can be positive (e.g. one race can prefer the company of its own race or even another) or it can be negative (e.g. one race can hate another). To qualify as racism, the bias must be irrational. That is, it cannot have a factual basis for preference.
2) Commonly intended definition(in America): A bias that white people have against blacks
3) Politically motivated definition: A justifiable reason to redistribute resources or opportunities between groups on the basis of race alone.
1) One is not a racist for pointing out that blacks receive lower scores on their ACTs, SATs, GREs, LSATs and other standardized tests of academic achievement.
2) One is a racist for pointing out #1 *IF* there is no reason for pointing it out other than to make black people feel inferior.
3) Racism is the reason that a 20 on the ACT should actually be considered a 25 if the test taker was black.
Blackmail refers to a situation that arises when a person threatens another person with some form of punishment if they do not offer some form of concessions. Blackmail is usually the result of one person somehow obtaining embarassing information about another and threatening to disclose it unless some form of payment (money or favors) is offered. The term originates from the words "black" and "mail", which referred to the dark or threatening nature of the letters (mail) that were received detailing the threat. Although blackmail usually entails paying a price to obtain another person's silence about an embarassing situation, it need not involve an actual event before it can be conducted. The threat of embarassing someone for a contrived event can be enough to conduct blackmail effectively, provided the threat is believable.
's Rainbow/PUSH Coalition
frequently tells companies that if they do not donate to their cause and hire their members, they will accuse them of racism
and organize commerce-damaging protests. Whether any racism exists or not, the threat of income loss and negative publicity is enough to extract blackmail money.
An apparently unprovable hypothesis that living creatures were created by an all-powerful, intelligent entity that itself did not have a creator. Contrast with evolution
. ID proponents typically fail to understand 4 things:
1) Scientists use the word "theory" differently than the layperson
2) Science operates just fine in the absence of absolute truths. Thus, if evolutionary theory doesn't explain everything, that's not a problem - it's a "work in progress"
3) People are no better off substituting a slightly imperfect scientific theory for a completely unsupported religious hypothesis
4) The fact that ID cannot be disproven is a weakness, not a strength (e.g. There are 482,331 raisins orbiting Saturn right now... I defy you to prove me wrong).
If Intelligent Design is such a great alternative explanation to evolutionary theory, why aren't proponents actually USING it to advance scientific understanding? In short, they should practice what they preach... literally.
A euphemism for an economic mugging by political force
Teacher's union rep: "We will not stand for any cuts in our benefits or salaries. Even if we make six figures with guaranteed employment regardless of performance. Even if the state is on the verge of bankruptcy. Why? Because this is about social justice"
(Cultural) Originally, diversity of ideas and viewpoints were recognized as important to many different endeavors such as learning and decision-making - the idea being that the over time the best ideas and/or viewpoints would win out in fair competition. Unfortunately, once this concept was generally embraced as a good thing, it was subsequently perverted and has become a euphemism for quota preferences given to politically favored minority groups in such areas as hiring, promotion, granting of federal contracts and admission into educational systems.
Genuine diversity would imply that someone from Greenland or New Zealand would be a welcome addition to increase the diversity of a university culture. Instead, administrators believe their university somehow becomes more diverse by adding one more black from down the road, increasing black % enrollment from 7.23% to 7.24%. Odd how administrators never seem to notice that blacks don't really contribute to diversity anyway since blacks usually restrict their company to that of other blacks in the student union, classroom, fraternity, university clubs, etc.
An absolutely horrible, despicable, racist thing to call an individual. Unless, of course, you're black and then it's simply harmless slang for a woman with oily, unkempt hair.
Don Imus will be perpetually referred to as the guy who uttered a "racial slur" against the Rutgers women's bball team when he called them "nappy headed ho"s. Puzzlingly enough, none of the words in this phrase have anything to do with race. But, hey, since when did minor details like that get in the way of the media's campaign to constantly aggravate racial tensions in the name of selling news?
The Name That Race game (NTR for short) entails viewing news articles and trying to guess the race of the person(s) involved before such information is given or implied. Players bet between 1 to 3 points prior to reading further or digging into other information sources to find the answer. If correct, they get the points bet added to their total, if wrong, the points are deducted.
Some critics have characterized NTR as "mean-spirited" but it is actually intended as a means of demonstrating liberal hypocrisy
in that liberals
do not believe racial behaviors can be stereotyped. So, in theory, if the liberals are correct, then no one should be able to attain a positive score in this game. However, skilled players somehow manage to "beat the odds" consistently.
As an example of how to play the Name That Race game, contrast two news article summaries (taken from actual recent news events) describing two unrelated rapes:
Article 1) "The rapist apparently had stalked his victim for weeks prior to breaking into her home. As the victim entered her home, the rapist surprised her and threatened her with a gun to remain silent. After raping the victim, the rapist left, warning her not to call the police for at least an hour or else he would return for her"
Article 2) "A victim was approaching her car in a fairly busy mall parking lot when the rapist ran up to her and threw her in the car, all in broad daylight. He drove a small distance away from the mall before stopping the car and beating the victim viciously prior to raping her. The rapist then drove off in her car, leaving her by the roadside without knowing if she would die of her wounds or not."
According to liberals, the odds of either rapist being black should be about 13% (which is the prevalence of blacks in the general population), so even if you're only right 50% of the time, you're still about four times more accurate than you should be. For the record, in this particular case, rapist #1 was white and rapist #2 was black. Try the game yourself and remember if you're not absolutely honest about the # of times you're right versus wrong and the # of points you bet, you're not playing NTR, you're plaing BTR (Blame That Race), which is much more boring. It's best to have a mediator who keeps score, but this is not always possible.