The Dictionary Adds 'White Fragility'

One of strangest developments in today's internet culture is how website dictionaries, which one might presume to be objective, have dabbled in "woke" leftist politics as a way of drawing clicks. USA Today reporter Jessica Guynn, who explains that her job is to explore how the digital world can "amplify bias and widen disparities," delighted in reporting how the term "white fragility" has been added to dictionaries as a result of racial discussions on social media.

Sociologist Robin Di Angelo, one in the endless line of perpetually bored, arrogant and/or ignorant "experts" on race, coined the term "white fragility" in 2011. It was overlooked initially (and for good reason: It's stupid). But naturally, it has picked up steam along with the political career of Donald Trump. After Trump won the presidency in 2016, the Oxford Dictionaries put the term on its short list for word of the year. Last week, it was added to Dictionary.com, defined as "the tendency among members of the dominant white cultural group to have a defensive, wounded, angry, or dismissive response to evidence of racism."

Imagine how these politically correct lexicographers would faint at altering this term for people of color: "black fragility," "Latino fragility," "Inuit fragility." But as usual, the white majority is singled out as perpetually unaware of its skin "privilege."

In 2017, the Oxford Dictionaries wrote about an instance of "white fragility" where, at diversity-training session for police officers in suburban Plainfield, Indiana, Captain Carri Weber presented an academic finding that said transgender people of color are about 2.5 times more likely to be assaulted by police than white non-transgender people. Captain Scott Arndt reacted defensively and said, "Most of the people I know have never ... accused the police of violence," and Weber replied, "'Cause of your white male privilege, so you wouldn't know."

You can't win against the Thought Police. Their list of societal sins committed by white people is perpetual.

Arndt then complained he was the victim of racism and sexism -- hence "white fragility," his "discomfort with being told about the structural advantages that both men and white folks are more likely to have." The dictionary people lectured that white people arguing with a leftist narrative on race "takes the story away from the victims of discrimination and gives it back to the perpetrators, who then use it as a weapon to defend the unjust status quo."

For expertise, USA Today turned to Aria Razfar, professor of education and linguistics at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Adding terms like "white fragility" to the dictionary is a signal the idea has "become more mainstream." Social media is accelerating the use and acceptance of this new lingo. Terms like white fragility "provide a language so that dominant society could interrogate itself and really look at itself in the mirror in terms of its relationship with non-dominant populations and oppressed groups."

The lesson? White men can never challenge "academic data" about racism in diversity training sessions, or anywhere else. "Oppressed groups" are always presumed to have the upper hand with evidence ... because they're "oppressed." The left is always trying to stack the deck and smother debate, and crying racism is a huge favorite.

The time has come, another expert told USA Today, where people are "interrogating the concept of whiteness." Somehow these people have no idea that they are driving voters right into Donald Trump's camp with their constant accusations of racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia and the whole dictionary of bigotries.

The only way out is to renounce your whiteness. We officially declare ourselves to be American Indians (like Sen. Elizabeth Warren) and identify as oppressed.

The whole reason these linguistic gymnastics are needed is because past linguistic gymnasts deluded or simply CHANGED the meanings of words to fit their needs and narrative. A good example is the word “racist.” It used to have a very simple definition: “a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another.”

However, the thought police and these educated idiots simply ignore the definition and instead implement their own contrived, self-serving definition that includes other linguistic gymnastic moves like “systemic racism” means only whites can be racist. Or “white privilege” means only those who have power can be racist. They completely ignore FACTS and change the narrative to meet their needs. They have even argued that the definition of “racist” is racist because it was written by white people! LOL!

Last night, my wife was watching “S.W.A.T” on TV - I was trying to go to sleep. I heard the story line and it was about the HEAD OF L.A. SWAT and the LA District Attorney (both black) were pulled over by a white Arizona state trooper. It was implied that he pulled them over for “no reason.” When asked, the trooper said he pulled them over for an unsafe/aggressive lane change.

When confronted again, later in the show, the trooper stated that he saw a rental vehicle (something that drug traffickers often use in the area), and used the lane change as a reason to ensure they were not traffickers.

Later, when the two black L.A. Law LEADERS were emotionally discussing the white troopers defensive and dismissive inferred racism, the BLACK SWAT LEADER said (I’m paraphrasing here), “I know it needs to be different, but when does it change?”

I said out loud, to my wife, “Did the BLACK SWAT LEADER and BLACK LA DA just act like they are living in the damn 1960’s?!?” THEY are the community leaders and law enforcers, IT HAS CHANGED! In 1960, neither one of them would have been able to SNIFF those positions of POWER which they wield! But THIS is the narrative the linguistic gymnasts want people to belief, while IGNORING the reality!

We have had a black President, we have had a black Attorney General, we have black Supreme Court Justices, BLACKS ARE American LEADERS and have AMERICAN POWER! Racism is not because someone is in power, it is simply prejudice and discrimination against people of other races - PERIOD! Power, authority and anything of that like has ZERO, NADA, NOTHING to do with whether someone is a racist! Unfortunately, no number of laws will change the evil that lurks in some people’s RACIST hearts!

How can these idiots (and most TV shows in general) believe that white people losing all power will simply stop people from being racist? Will we only stop being “racist” when blacks have ALL power positions?!? Will we stop being “racist” when whites lose 50% of power positions? Exactly when and how does having or not having power positions change the prejudice and hatred in someones’ heart?!?

If you are wondering how the 100% or even 50% loss of power positions will work out, imagine putting RACIST blacks who hate whites into all the power positions! For a look into that scenario, take a look at South Africa, where the pendulum has swung so far that murdering white farmers is considered a normal and acceptable means to “right the wrongs!” The change of power didn’t stop blacks from hating whites, and I will guarantee you that the indiscriminate killing and robbing of whites is not exactly making them love blacks!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.