Tumblr Dictionary
- Senpai: An upperclassmate. Someone you really admire on tumblr.
- Kouhai: The underclassman who wishes to get Senpai to notice them.
- Peasant: Anyone who doesn't understand your ways!
- tl;dr: Too long, didn't read. Used for exceptionally long posts where you still wish to put in your two cents.
- FC/FaceClaim: Roleplayers will sometimes use a 'faceclaim', which is an icon to represent their character. Sometimes known as a 'playby'.
- Mun/mod: The person behind the character in roleplaying.
- Muse: The character you roleplay as.
- OTL/ORZ: An emote of a very depressed guy on his hands and knees.
- FML: Fuck my life, chatspeak that is commonly used.
- OOC: Out of character, used to signify that the mod/mun is speaking
- IC: In-character, used to signify that the muse is speaking.
- RP: a shortened version of roleplay.
- Roleplay: Writing with others to create a story.
- Indie/Independent: A roleplay blog that is not affiliated with any groups.
- AU: Alternate Universe - An AU signifies that it does not pertain to your main storyline.
- Daddy: !!!!!A TERM YOU DONT USE TO REFER TO DAVID KARP!!!!!!!
- OC: An original character made up by your own imagination, or a character not in canon.
- Canon: Something that happened in the original work. For example: Harry marries Ginny.
- Head-Canon: Something about a character, not explicitly mentioned in canon, that you devise to better your roleplay characterization. For example: Harry Potter has a fear of spiders.
- Gary-Stu/Mary-Sue: A perfect character who has no flaws (or very few flaws) and is greatly over-powered.
- God-mod/Godmoding: Someone who plays out they're "too powerful" or "invincible" or simply "resistant" to all the elements/attacks put upon them.
- OTP: "One true pairing". A person's favorite ship.
- Fandom: A collective group of fans of a show, book, movie or other other media.
- Ships: Pairings of characters together. Short for "relationships".
- Powerplaying: Taking control of someone else's character. A big no-no in the roleplay world.
- Feels: A great emotion in which the person feels for a character for example: Jack Frost fell through the ice.
- Koala Tea: A Quality blog
- Homestuck: kids play a game and shit gets real. then everyone dies.
- David Karp: NOT YOUR DAD PLEASE STOP THIS NOW
- xD: this is something you dont do
- Self-promoting: something you also dont do haaha for more funny text posts follow osamhungergames
- "You helped that one person get the fluffy chicken": something you dont do
- FEEL FREE TO ADD YOUR OWN! REBLOG THIS FOR OTHERS!:
Why is “Systematic Racism” the Only Definition of Racism?
The part of this conversation that some find confusing and others purposefully dismiss, is the very beginning. Before we get started, I want to say, racism is not a game to win. If your goal is to “get” to say that you’ve experienced racism too, there is a good chance that you are a racist who believes racism is simply a card to play. Something with no real consequences. Which in turn, proves that you’ve never been on the receiving end.
In the beginning, there was a system. This is very difficult to understand unless we break this down. While, the dictionary speaks of racism as a personal hate for another based on race, you have to remember that the “hate” came from somewhere. Racism is not something that sneaks up on you, it is something that is ingrained within. Our environmental queues help us, from day one, to know where we stand within any given population. The idea that racists woke up one day and said, “I just decided that I don’t like Latin@s” is absurd. None the less, let’s pretend that this is exactly what happened to Person A.
Person A, woke up this morning and for no apparent reason, decided that he hated Latin@s. Now, the question is, when you ask Person A why he doesn’t like or hates Latin@s, can you think of a single answer he could give you, that wouldn’t be directly ingrained within from the racist system?
Let’s take this a little further. Let’s say, the reason Person A now hates Latin@s is because a Latin@ person did something horrible to him. It doesn’t matter what the “something” is. Let’s just say it was something unconscionable. Now Person A has a reason. How would Person A sustain this hate for all Latin@s? Hate for a single person, yes. Hate for the entire group? That would take more than a single incident because our minds do not suddenly decide that all are bad, when we have seen that one was bad. Contrary to what many seem to believe, any negative interaction that we’ve had with someone from any given group, is backed up by what we’ve been taught systematically through out our lives.
Now, in a previous post, someone said that in order for the system to be a system it would have had to start with an individual. If you read that quickly and don’t think about it to much, it sounds almost reasonable, yes? Here’s where this logic falls short.
Let’s say, you have lived your entire life in one single room. There are 99 other people in this room. There is no outside information that enters the room. This room, as far as you know, is the entire universe. Everyone inside this room, is everyone that exists within the universe. You are a lone person who is a racist. No one else in the room is a racist. There are four racial groups within this room and you hate two of them based solely on the color of their skin. Why are you racist? Really think about this. There is no propaganda and you live in the kind of room that racists seem to think we all currently live in. A room where, yes, “We are all human.” There is no news coverage. If you want to know what’s happening, you can just walk across the room and ask. Any music that is playing, is made by the person sitting three feet away from you. There is no crime as there is no reason for it. Yes, you have arguments and disagreements, even fights from time to time. Why are you a racist? Could it be that you got into a fight with someone of another race and you were so upset that you wanted to punish anyone that looked like them? Okay, let’s go with that. If that were the case, how would you go about “BEING” racist? You see the “Hate in your heart” crap is nothing. “Hate in your heart” doesn’t matter unless it is acted on. If it is there, it can be denied. Whether it is or it isn’t, “Hate in your heart” cannot be proven.
So you want to make anyone that looks like this person pay. That will lead to action on your part. You need people on your side. You need….A SYSTEM. Your solitary, lone hate of another based on the color of their skin wouldn’t matter in this room if were a mere thought and/or feeling. It couldn’t even be construed as racism because you would have to argue about the “Racism” that was in someone’s thoughts. How? How can you KNOW what someone is thinking if they do not act, speak or react? Your lone racism would die when you die if there was no action. Racism is an action. Words, body language, fists or oppression of any kind. These are actions. You having “Hate in your heart” would make you a person with hate in your heart and nothing more.
All racism is the product of a racist system. All of it. Therefore, when a person (or the dictionary) says that racism is when Person A hates Person B because of the color of their skin, it is leaving out the REASON for the hate. It is leaving out what lead to the hate. It is leaving out where the hate was manifested from and how.
While it is possible for an individual to be a racist, it is not possible for an individual to be racist without first going through the system. In short, systematic racism is the only definition because any and all other forms of racism stem from this definition. Saying there is “More than one” definition or worse, that this definition isn’t the “Real” definition is like saying ice can exist without first having water. At best, you could accurately say that there are multiple types of racism. However, saying that there is more than one definition, is false. There is only one, from which all racist types stem.
On top of all of this, the number one argument racists make to say that the “Power + Prejudice” definition isn’t the sole definition, is to say that there are places on Earth where white people aren’t in power. This really speaks to how they see themselves. The definition isn’t “WHITE power + Prejudice.” It’s “Power + Prejudice.” The very idea that THEY think that “Power = white” says everything you ever need to know.
If after reading this, you still have doubts about the definition, I have an exercise for you. Name a single racist thought a person could have that can NOT be back up by racist propaganda that already exists as part of the racist system. Oh and for you not so clever racists, I said “Thought” not action. Even though a person can’t “Prove” a thought, it’s the thought that leads to action. So no cheating. Why would you need to anyway? You are so SURE that the definition is about hate in your heart and a noose and a moose and a caboose. Can you come up with even one thought?
“Redefining a word isn't always the same as giving it a new meaning. Sometimes you're just trying to pare it down to the core concept that people missed the first time around. Dictionary definitions of "camera" used to mention film and plates; now they just refer to a photosensitive surface. But the meaning of "camera" isn't different; it's just that now technology lets us see what its essence has been all along.”
—Geoff Nunberg on how dictionaries are even grappling with getting ‘marriage’ rightOn Useful and Not-So-Useful Definitions of Racism
freethoughtblogs.comRichard Dawkins, whose Twitter feed never fails to amuse, has lately been discussing racism–specifically, against white people.
Dawkins sounds eerily like my high school self here–desperate to stick to his own definitions of things and reject the definitions of others, all while claiming that everyone needs to be using the same definition in order for a discussion to be productive. Dawkins assumes that a dictionary definition is by default more legitimate than a definition provided by people who actually study the subject in question and presumes that what is written in a dictionary is “true” in the same sense as, say, the periodic table or the speed of light. Consider that dictionaries have historically been written by those least likely to understand what racism actually is and how it actually works, because if you’re a white person, racism isn’t something you’re ever forced to give serious thought to.
It is true that if you define racism as “not liking someone based on their race,” then people of color can be just as racist as white people. If you define racism this way, then it is true that the person who dismissed Dawkins’ opinion at the beginning was being racist. If you define racism this way, then it is true that a white person who is treated rudely by a Black person is a victim of racism, and it is true that, strictly speaking, affirmative action is racist.
But the fact is that this isn’t a very useful definition. You might as well make up a word for “not liking someone based on the color of their hair” or “not liking someone based on whether they wear boxers or briefs.” I don’t deny that it’s hurtful when someone doesn’t like you based on something arbitrary like your skin color, but when you’re white, this doesn’t carry any cultural or institutional power. When you’re not white, it does. Because then it’s not just a random asshole who doesn’t like your skin color.
I have had a person of color express prejudice towards me because I’m white exactly once in my life. Once. (And for what it’s worth, it was a stranger on the train who apparently just felt like yelling at people that day.) I have never been denied a job because I’m white. I have never been followed around or stopped and frisked by the police because I’m white. I’ve never been told I’m ugly because I’m white. I have never been told I’m stupid because I’m white, and I’ve never been told that I’m unusually intelligent for a white person.
Disliking someone based on their skin color is not enough for it to be racism. In fact, it’s not even a necessary condition. You can like people of color a lot while still maintaining that they’re just different from white people or that they need protection or that they’re perhaps better suited by nature for servile roles (this was an attitude commonly expressed during slavery). Likewise, you can just loooooove women while still supporting patriarchal laws and cultural norms, which is why I have to laugh when someone’s all like “But how can I be sexist? I LOOOOVE women! ;)”
As a scientist, Dawkins must realize how difficult it is when people take technical terms and use them too generally. For instance, a “chemical” is any substance that has a constant composition and that is characterized by specific properties. Elements are chemicals. Compounds are chemicals. Basically, tons of substances are chemicals, including water. Yet most people use “chemical” to mean “awful scary synthetic substance put into our food/water/hygienic products.” You see products being advertised as “chemical-free,” a laughable concept, and people talking about how “chemicals” are bad for you.
So yes, it’s important to recognize that many people use the word “chemical” in a particular way that conflicts with the definition used by chemists. But that doesn’t suddenly mean that this lay definition becomes the “real” definition and the chemists are suddenly “wrong.” And if you want to rant about the dangers of chemicals with your friends (I’d advise you not to, but whatever), it doesn’t matter if you use the lay definition.
But the way the lay public uses the word “chemical” is essentially meaningless, because they basically use it to mean “substances that may or may not be dangerous but we don’t really know we just know that we can’t pronounce them.” It doesn’t even necessarily refer to synthetic substances, because most people would probably say that cyanide is a chemical, it’s naturally occurring (in fact, it’s produced in certain fruit seeds). So if you want to discuss chemicals with a chemist, you’d better use the actual definition, because the terms used by chemists are more precise and useful.
Of course, when it comes to race it’s not quite as benign as people taking chemistry terms and using them haphazardly. It’s important to remember that white people have a vested interest in ignoring the structural causes and effects of racism–the kind that are best encapsulated in the definition of racism preferred by sociologists and activists. It’s uncomfortable to talk about racism this way. It’s painful and guilt-inducing to acknowledge that you (as a white person) have benefited from unearned privileges at the expense of people of color. It’s awkward to admit that affirmative action is not “bias in favor of people of color”; it’s an attempt to correct for the fact that college admissions and hiring practices are actually prejudiced in favor of whites, and this has been shown by controlled studies over and over again.
What’s significantly more comfortable is claiming that “everyone can be racist” and “Blacks can be racist too” and “some Blacks are even more racist toward whites than whites are toward them.” That is a definition of racism that white folks can deal with. But that doesn’t make it useful for actually talking about the things that matter.
