Does the majority of reddit believe in reverse racism/discrrimination?

Wow. Okay, to start. I agree - the English language is maleable. It adapts to its usage. But have you ever honestly heard the term 'race' used to describe, for example, a chess club? If you have then, frankly, fair enough. But, with a little research, I can safely say that, despite your dictionary references, nowhere else can I find anything that uses the term race in this way, and neither have I ever heard it used - while the language is flexible and can be changed, this is generally brought forward by common usage, which clearly it has not. Or hey, maybe I'm wrong. I, however, don't think I am.

Now, addressing the use of the Oxford Dictionary - I referenced this due to it's general trustworthiness and the fact that anyone with a hard copy of a dictionary at home (in the UK at least) generally has an Oxford English Dictionary. We can use others though, if you like. How about Cambridge, or the free online dictionary, the learners dictionary, Merriam Webster, Your Dictionary - none of these define race as 'any group' of people. The closest we come is the latter defining it as 'humans considered as a group' which, I would argue, is qualified as ethnicity or origin related, as implyed by the term 'humans' rather than people. Chalk that up.

Determining a sites validity by its 'hits' is as irrelevant as determining a text's reliability by its typeface. Again, just because a lot of people click on it doesn't make it true. Robin Thicke's 'Blurred Lines' was a popular song, so that must make date rape okay. The logic is absurd.

Also, beginning sentences with conjunctions is generally considered to be acceptable. The notion that it isn't is sparsely debated. I also went to university (I didn't recieve an A, I recieved a 1st (1:1) - surely if you actually went to university you would know how the grading system works?) and I also began sentences with conjunctions. Funnily enough, it didn't harm my grades. The reason being that it doesn't actually matter, it becomes mere pedantry.

While others look at the differences between American-English and British-English, I can't help but think to myself, "what about medicine or automobiles?" Different professions often use different languages, and even as a child, I would make up my own language, "please pass me that doodlebug". It's natural for people to do that. You may question that if I'm so open-minded about the language, then why would I try correct you? Firstly, I agreed with your point in its entirety and secondly it's because of the thought process.

Re-read this, dude, because, as far as I can tell, it has no logical progression. As far as I can see, you're essentially re-hashing the 'maleability of language' argument.

Here your logic falls short because I'm to infer from what you've said that something can't have two definitions e.g. a door's a rectangle but it's also a square; doors are also made of wood. The medical definition of race might be one thing but in keeping with what I've said previously--if we forget the language--what's actually being said?

How exactly does my logic fall short? I never define a word as having a single meaning. In fact, I gave the term race 3 different meanings in my first comment. So, what exactly is your point?

Racism in this context is about hating a group for being different. Therefore, the race is a "group". If we see a bunch of fat people and a bunch of thin people and they're separated, we'll notice this--we are "group" finders.

Again, not true. Racism derives from zenophobia, a fear of the other, the outsider or the alien. The reason racism was named thusly is due to the (albeit flawed) use of race to define ethnicity. We are not governed by Aristotelian categorisation. While, I agree, people like to put things into boxes, this doesn't apply to everything. It certainly doesn't apply to fat kids being a race.

And lastly, that isn't hypocritical. How is 'then we'll talk' patronising? It defines a willingness to comply given certain parameters. And I didn't 'call' you a ballbag, I said you were acting like a ballbag (an easy distinction to make for an 'A grade' university student).

A part of me thinks that if I were in their situation, would I be a little more forgiving before insulting them back? Would I hear their side of the story first? The answer is yes, yes I would, and for that reason I end up thinking I am above everyone.

Let me take you back to just 4 hours ago when you were acting a patronising, sarcastic keyboard warrior. Hearing someone elses side of the story is opening up to discussion; creating a dialogue; exchanging ideas. Seeing as you're so intelligent and masteful of the English language, couldn't you figure out a trend between the type of language you use and what triggers these responses?

Finally, from the list of dictionaries above, I call scoreboard. Good day.

/r/AskReddit Thread Parent