Skip to main content

The change of meaning of "white supremacy"

If there's one thing that the regressive leftist social justice ideology loves, it's to take existing words with very negative connotations, and change their meaning and start using these words with this new meaning, while still carrying (and taking advantage of) the original negative connotations. This is almost always used in a very deceptive way, to make something sound significantly worse than it really is.

Perhaps one of the most prominent and notorious recent examples of this is the hijacking of the term "white supremacy", and doing exactly the above.

I kid you not, when the social justice ideologues use the term "white supremacy", what they really mean is "white privilege". They are essentially synonyms. When "intersectional feminist" academics use the term, they are literally using it as a synonym for that other favorite made-up term of theirs, ie "white privilege". They indeed are using "white supremacy" to mean something along the lines of "the unearned privileges that white people have for merely being white (and which is completely independent of what the person may believe or do)".

This is an especially dishonest and deceitful switcheroo, because it fools and deceives people.

After all, if someone in a position of power and influence (like, let's say, the President of the United States) says that "one of the biggest problems in this country is white supremacy", this gives the average person the mental picture of armed neonazis roaming the streets, assaulting black people and Mexicans, and committing terrorist attacks.

If such a person were honest rather than deceitful, and instead said "one of the biggest problems in this country is white privilege", the average listener would just laugh at it and dismiss it. By merely making this term switcheroo, using the hijacked term without explaining what it's actually supposed to mean, misleads and fools people into thinking that it's being used with the old meaning. Suddenly it sounds much more serious than it really is.

But, of course, even then many social justice ideologues can't help but start misusing the term even in this new meaning in situations where it cannot possibly apply, and such usage is just absolutely insane.

Such as, for example, claiming that demanding rigor in math in school is "white supremacy". Regardless of which meaning of that term is used, how exactly is mathematical rigor "white supremacy"? How does demanding correct answers to mathematical problems "give unearned benefits to white people", or "establish that the white race is superior to other races"?

Unless, of course, the people making that claim think that white people actually are superior to other races and therefore more capable at math.

Comments

  1. Hi which of the following countries will be the first to surrender and completely be occupied by sjw USA or Canada or UK? My vote goes to Canada.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Depends on your definition of "completely be occupied". The thing about the SJW ideology is that it will never be happy and content with what it has achieved and how the society is. Its work will never be done. There will never come a situation where the SJWs say "ok, society is now exactly how we want it to be, we can stop now". That will never, ever happen, no matter what. They will always find new enemies, new oppressors and new victims. It's a victimhood cult, and it cannot live without victims and oppressors, and will always find and create them.

      Delete
  2. To rephrase my question in which country do you think things will go faster for sjw to take control of all institutes and run their agenda freely and create a havoc in the society and dismantle basic foundations of modernism's pillars so that country in the hands of sjw will be like one of the third countries in the world so tbe the first regressive example of a country which goes backward in time and destroy itself. USA UK CANADA.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment