drethelin
kavaeric:

damion1060:

sixmillionsongbirds:

sendintheclownswithoutadash:

akeemofzamunda:

collegexbeauty:

thebigblackwolfe:

mad-detective-in-the-impala:

Although I got it in a few seconds I am still really angry at myself for not getting that straight away I mean my god

I HATE EVERYONE.

I am really trying my hardest to figure this out and I cannot get it.

im so mad right now…

LMAO

It took me SO LONG to figure this out. I thought it was a reference or something but now I get it omggg

Would someone be so kind as to explain it to me?

The ninth book isn’t

kavaeric:

damion1060:

sixmillionsongbirds:

sendintheclownswithoutadash:

akeemofzamunda:

collegexbeauty:

thebigblackwolfe:

mad-detective-in-the-impala:

Although I got it in a few seconds I am still really angry at myself for not getting that straight away I mean my god

I HATE EVERYONE.

I am really trying my hardest to figure this out and I cannot get it.

im so mad right now…

LMAO

It took me SO LONG to figure this out. I thought it was a reference or something but now I get it omggg

Would someone be so kind as to explain it to me?

The ninth book isn’t

suwakoing-deactivated20141005

the-real-seebs:

negativekarmaengine:

the-real-seebs:

negativekarmaengine:

the-real-seebs:

kowh:

“There is no system of oppression in America that actively works to oppress and subjugate white people. Sorry to break it to you, but your individual suffering is just that, individual. The individuals acting against you do not have the institutionalized power to actively oppress you in every facet of your life, nor would their racism be upheld and supported by government, media, and legislation if they did. Because you’re white. Reverse racism isn’t real because we live in a culture that supports and enforces whiteness as the norm and PoC as other. If you experience discrimination, prejudice, or bigotry, it’s valid to be upset about it and want to talk about it. It is not valid to claim that it is reverse racism, and certainly not valid to claim that it is racism on par with anything like the institutionalized racism that PoC will come into contact with.”

Why Reverse Racism Isn’t Real by Sara Luckey (via hachikuji)

In a nutshell.

Which is sort of true, except the claim it actually makes and the claim it shows are different. Because what this really means is not “reverse racism isn’t real” but “reverse racism has no institutional backing”. Which is true, and extremely significant, but it overlooks a very important thing, which is that racism is still racism no matter who it’s directed at, no matter how powerful it is or isn’t.

There is more to “is this bad” than “does this bad thing have the backing of large institutional power structures”.

I think you are both right… and that it is due to semantics. Academic discussions of racism (or any of the big structuralist issues) are supported by the quote. An important part of the definition of racism in that circle IS that very fact that it is institutionalized. The issues on a personal basis would be more carefully defined as bigotry. Which can totally occur in ways that seem like reverse racism. Although even bigotry is still subjected to institutionalized pressure.

However, in the popular or common use of the term to mean any race you’re correct. Often those feelings and issues are important to address because they help to create a base of support for the institutionalized racism. Effective attempts to address racism should not only look at the institutionalized problems but should minimize potential for bigoted application and intent should be communicated clearly and repeatedly. 

But the divide between academic and popular usages is a frustrating thing to navigate because you want your work to do good but its hard to communicate what you are about because the popular use of terms is often so twisted from their origins. 

The “academic” usage is dishonest and is used to equivocate.

Academics are not idiots. They don’t take a term with a well-established meaning and suddenly declare that actually it only applies to a carefully-defined subset of that meaning, without full awareness of the likely damage this will do to any attempt to communicate. It’s absolutely intentional.

The first time I encountered this usage, it was someone who had just asserted that, without any exceptions, every single man, ever, in the world, would never accept a “no” answer from a woman. Period. No exceptions. No “often”, “generally”, anything like that. Just that all men inherently suck like that because men are all inherently incapable of respect. And the purpose of the redefinition of “sexist” was to allow her to say “that’s not exist because by definition it can’t be”, which allowed her to carefully ignore the question of whether it might reasonably be taken to be in some way a problem to consign half the species to hell based on a prejudice.

I’m not going to be convinced that this one is legitimate, or has a legitimate purpose. Perhaps most importantly, given that we all know perfectly well that there is a non-academic meaning, for someone to take claims that are clearly about that other meaning, and just ignore what the speaker or writer unambiguously meant and pretend they were using a different definition is obviously dishonest. A writer who reinterprets someone else’s claims in terms of this alleged “academic definition” is lying, pure and simple. They don’t seriously think that the reinterpreted claim is what anyone meant. Rather, they are trying to trick other people into thinking that that’s what everything meant, using a redefinition to change the meaning of text that was clearly not written with that definition in mind.

It is sleaze, and it is sleaze all the way down.

Let me clarify, and I hope I am interpreting your reply correctly I’m not feeling well and concentration is difficult at the moment. 

I am an academic. I professionally publish and write about gender and technology, so I have a fair amount of experience dealing with this personally in my work. 

The way that I have seen the flow of terms is not from popular use  to academic use but the other way around. Terms will often start with a narrow academic use and then filter into public use as policy is made particularly with longstanding issues like race in the US. My reading of the quote is based upon that flow of definitions (narrow academic -> general public). 

Well, that’s the thing. The word “racism” is not a word which was coined in academia. It’s a word that already existed, and had a meaning, and it is pretty damn clear that the people whining about “reverse racism” are speaking in terms of that existing meaning. So anyone who is using that academic meaning in an analysis of a discussion of “reverse racism” is pretty much lying. They are at best equivocating, and I don’t think it’s even remotely possible for it to be unintentional equivocation. I mean, seriously, do you think that these academics are unaware that the redefinition of “racism” to mean “racism backed by power” is local to a specific context? I don’t think they are. I think they know that a person talking about “reverse racism” means “race-based bigotry from minorities directed at whites”. And that means that any discussion of it which then uses the “academic” usage to try to rebut it is dishonest.

The use of terms within academia doesn’t adapt to social change quickly and the styles of writing tend to be socially reinforced. The quote reads to me as something I would find in a journal article or as someone who writes that type of material frequently. Stylistically, it fits to what I would expect from that type of work and as such that how I read it.

Even if we concede that, it’s dishonest, because it’s clearly talking about a completely different sense of the term. This is like a lawyer responding to someone who claims that they were “begging and pleading for X to do something” by saying “you weren’t pleading, you didn’t file anything with a judge.” That’s so obviously not responsive at all to what the person said that I can’t take it seriously.

However I am willing to admit my own training and bias in that reading and I  can see how the semantic differences can be used as a get out of jail free card. I would in no way support attempts at defining it away as a problem. 

In which case, the only option available is to unconditionally reject the use of the unqualified term for a highly-qualified subset, and insist on using the qualification or coining a new term, rather than trying to redefine an extremely well-established word into a completely different word.

Any usage of “racism” to mean “only some instances of racism” has the effect of supporting attempts to create a “get out of bigotry free” card, because there’s no way to avoid the equivocation. Even if you were utterly careful to avoid intentionally using the term equivocally, anything you say which is true only of institutional racism, but is claimed of “racism”, can be quoted by other people as support for that equivocation, and even if suddenly everyone agreed on the formal definition being suddenly restrictive, no one now alive is likely to live long enough to see a time when the connotations have caught up.

That usage cannot be a good idea. And honestly, this is so completely obvious, and the damage to communication is so inevitable, that I cannot imagine a circumstance under which someone educated enough to be an “academic” would have invented that usage without malicious intent.

nihilsupernum

imstandingherenoteavesdropping:

ftm-transscribed:

Why do physicists get frustrated with those who hijack “quantum” anything for their spiritual “enlightenment”?

Why do scientists get frustrated with those who are anti-GMO?

Why do I get frustrated with people who think that homeschooling and “unschooling” are the answer?

And so on…

Here’s a…

I agree with most of the points here, but the homeschooling/unschooling one isn’t at all fair. True, there are Christian homeschoolers who homeschool because they don’t want their kids to be “corrupted” by school, but most of the homeschoolers I know do it because school doesn’t work for them. School can have too much homework that doesn’t actually help one to learn; school can move too slowly or too quickly; school rarely accommodates for people with learning disabilities; school can be full of bullies. Homeschooling allows people to learn about what interests them; they can pursue math, chemistry, history, politics, computers, whatever they choose in far more depth than is possible in school. Most importantly, in my opinion, is that with homeschooling one learns that learning is fun, and leans how to teach oneself; even if one does not learn the standard curriculum, one learns how to learn it and love it.

raginrayguns
Then you should have died! Died, rather than betray your friends, as we would have done for you.

This line here is the reason I get so annoyed when people act like Peter wasn’t their friend, when they portray him to be this annoying little tag-along, like he wasn’t a proper marauder. 

Sirius would have died for Peter. 

It’s what makes Peter’s betrayal so damning, the fact that they all would have died for him. They would have died rather then betray their friend.

(via togetherithinkso)

Literally there’s NO POINT in peter’s storyline AT ALL if people pretend for a second that he wasn’t a marauder, or that the others didn’t love him as much as they did each other.

(via sweatersnervously)

kelsbraintumbler

kelsbraintumbler:

missbrostrider:

Ok since April fools is coming up let me make a clear message for you

  • DONT ASK SOMEONE OUT THAT YOU KNOW LIKES YOU AS A JOKE
  • DONT ASK SOMEONE OUT THAT YOU KNOW LIKES YOU AS A JOKE
  • DONT ASK SOMEONE OUT THAT YOU KNOW LIKES YOU AS A JOKE
  • DONT ASK SOMEONE OUT THAT YOU KNOW LIKES YOU AS A JOKE

PLEASE DONT DO THIS OK I KNOW A FEW PEOPLE HAVE DONE THIS IN THE PAST AND ITS JUST A DICK MOVE DONT FUCKING DO IT. 

DON’T EVER ASK ANYONE OUT AS A JOKE!

EVEN IF THEY ‘LIKE YOU IT SENDS THE MESSAGE THAT THAT’S THE ONLY REASON ANYONE WOULD EVER ASK THEM OUT!