@SHEsus__Christ - The vitriol with which people attack Christianity is truly sickening

What leftists like this guy call "racism" is just what normal people call "reality".

Here are examples about statements which need no defense because they are accurate, whether you wish they were false or not:
Since Hey-Zeus up here needs a reminder, here's what racism actually means, as defined in an age before the dictionary decided to rewrite words when conservatives kept winning arguments with facts based on them...from Webster's 1987 New World Dictionary of the American Language:
The practice of racial discrimination, persecution, etc

For those who have trouble keeping track, discrimination's relevant definition discusses "to make distinctions in treatment; show partiality or prejudice", and prejudice is a really important distinction to make...emphasis is mine

  1. a preconceived, usually unfavorable, idea
  2. an opinion held in disregard of facts that contradict it; bias
  3. intolerance or hatred of other races. etc.

So as noted in other contexts, it's not "racial profiling" when it's just "the description of the suspect". If the facts back up your claims about statistical prevalences among ethnic groups it's not racism. So saying that Red Indians in Canada commit a disproportionate number murders isn't racism, it's based on fact. Claiming that whites commit a disproportionate number of mass shootings in the United States is racism, the facts disprove it.

Now you may argue, and leftists certainly have, that it's totally okay to suddenly change the definition to mean something extremely different than what it meant before.

The flip side of that however, which John McWhorter (nonwhite) is seemingly intellectually incapable of grasping, is that if we change the definition of a word from what it was before (A) into something different now (B) then we also have to make our value judgment about the word based on (B) rather than simply carryover all the contextual "baggage" that it had with (A). If both (A) and (B) are kept as meanings of the word, then it's a horrible idea because then people who refer to it could be unaware that they are in fact discussing different topics.

Let's pick a theoretical example of a word that has a well-known meaning that hasn't changed with time: introvert. As per that 1987 Webster's dictionary, it means:

one who is more interested in his own thoughts, feelings,etc. than to external objects or events

Seems all well and good. We'll call that definition (A), which at first seems odd since we haven't any second definition but we'll get to that. Now let's decide that a bunch of lunatic activists realize we don't have a term for a person who rapes puppies while simultaneously slitting their throats, and without an available one at hand, they decide to make a portmanteau of "intr" (as in "intrusive" to describe the knife slicing the puppy's trachea), "o" (as in orgasm, which presumably he's doing), and "vert" as in "pervert". So now we have two definitions of introvert:

  • A. one who is more interested in his own thoughts, feelings,etc. than to external objects or events
  • B. one who engages in sexual activity with multiple young dogs while slitting the animals' throat at the time of penetration

As you might imagine, "introvert" would be a pretty horrible thing to call somebody. You'd be totally angry if somebody accused you of...well, wait, what if they're just saying you're "guilty" of the other thing. There's nothing to be ashamed about for being introverted is there? You're interested in your own thoughts and don't like mingling at parties. Why are people getting so mad about that? It's entirely accurate under the definition to call you an introvert, but it's wholly inappropriate for anybody who say you shouldn't be allowed to run for political office or hold down a managerial job or write a sports column because of it.

As I'm sure you've picked up on, this is just the flip side of this whole "redefining racism" notion. If Buddy McCriminey up there decides to use the "2.0" or "3.0" definition to describe somebody's beliefs as "racism" that's fine, but then he shouldn't call them "sickening" either. If "racism" now doesn't mean an irrational or inaccurate opinion about races, then it's perfectly acceptable for people accused of it to shrug and say "sure whatevs". We're being accused of slaughtering puppies just because we prefer a good book [like, say, Huckleberry Finn perhaps? -ed] to a crowded dance floor, and that's unfair.

It's worth noting that McWhorter (no, seriously, what's his real name?) is at least dimly aware of this. Not the value judgment part, which as I noted earlier was still beyond his black brain, but the bit about how it's confusing (he also wasn't wise enough to call it horrible) if the two definitions (A and B, old and new) are too radically divergent.

If I had it my way—which I won’t—we would allow that racism now refers to a societal state, and revive prejudice to refer to attitudinal bias.

So does that mean this "societal state" you refer to is still wrong, because "racism is wrong"? Nope, because "racism is wrong" disappeared the moment you changed the meaning of racism. We now have to re-evaluate the term...McWhorter, and presumably Gary who tweeted up top, have now decided that:

The societal disparities between white people and others are themselves referred to as racism, as a kind of shorthand for the attitudinal racism creating the disparities

But is there anything wrong with "the societal disparities between white people and others"? Nope, partly because the theoretical basis behind it ("attitudinal racism creating the disparities") is a lie with no basis. None. We're still waiting on a single example of systemic racism folks...just one. Why is this so hard for you folks to do? Also seeing as how "societal disparities" are simply the cumulative impact of individual human disparities, and individual human disparities in a free market system are perfectly acceptable even if based on "attitudinal racism" (since each person has the right in their own property to distribute it or contract to distribute it using any qualifications they deem valid, and pay the costs and reap the benefits resulting from them), then we shouldn't fret about "societal disparities" because they don't affect us as individuals. A collection of niggers on the Eight Mile in Detroit who are poor don't really impact Jay-Z, other than this group of people not having money are less likely to afford to buy his latest CD. If this same collection of niggers happen to prefer Alice Cooper, then tripling their incomes doesn't impact Jay-Z in anything but the tiniest macroeconomics sense...and tripling the income of a collection of poor whites in Lansing (who also prefer Alice Cooper) has an almost identical effect.

So save your outrage to the homo who molested you or whatever other horrible choices led to you putting a rainbow flag on your profile, dude, and let people "defend their racism" up and down until the cows come home. After all, your side decided that the word isn't as bad as it used to be.