California city denies Straight Pride rally permit

First, I do appreciate you lengthy reply…I realize this took a bit of time, and I appreciate what I feel is your honest response.

Second, to your first point: It does seem as there will be no end describing all systems as “racist”, using your definitions. I think our systems can be improved, but the continual description of them as being “racist,” implies they must be totally changed. EX: I think our capitalist system is good, but can be improved. Some people using your definition want to totally change that to some form of socialism.

Third, I do find it interesting that many people who use your definitions of racism, see disparate impacts of financial or education systems on minorities, but seem quite passive on the disparate impact of abortion (including Planned Parenthood, and their racist founder Margaret Sanger).

To tie all of this back to the thread, I find all forms of identity politics to be divisive.

1 Like

No, that’s not what it means.

Well I can’t discuss any job loss without the case at hand to look at the details

But I know there are also people who lose jobs for actually being racist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc. but they refuse to acknowledge the reason or take the time to understand why someone might think their behavior is unacceptable to their employer.

The guy who is let go for making “blue” jokes and making creepy compliments to the lady co-workers after being asked to stop is being inappropriate, even if he doesn’t think so. (This is just an example of something that happened at an office I worked at)

Brandon Eich is one example. There are others.

For the unfamiliar

Thank you. It’s nice to have an actually civil conversation about two points of view without the usual snark and meanness on this forum. I appreciate your replies too.

There shouldn’t be an end to describing systems that are like that. And I do think the US is getting better. I think it’s undeniable that the US is better now than it was 60 years ago. But there’s still a lot that can be done. I don’t know what ‘totally changed’ would mean in terms of racial inequality - going from unequal to not unequal? I think that’s a fine goal.

I am not a sociologist or a specialist but I should think that racism (in terms of power structures) does play a part in the higher abortion rates for African-Americans. That community is vulnerable to being in positions that need abortions.

I suppose they can be? But whether or not we like it, identity has played a part in US politics since the beginning. Explicitly. And we’re reaping the consequences of our forefather’s failings.

Racism is a real thing. Racism can be used in different power structures. This does not mean that racism can now be defined only in terms of power structure. That is incoherent.

Punching someone is real. Punching someone can be used in different sports. To then try and define punching someone only in terms of sporting events is incoherent.

Such an attempted redefinition would be used to demonise sports and overlook and perhaps excuse punching people outside of sporting events.

Like many attempted language redefinitions of the Left it is meant to dumb down intelligent conversation in order to be politically (and racially) biased.

I added numbers in your quote so I can address the points easier.

  1. Again, you’re making this into an argument about semantics. There’s nothing incoherent about defining terms before talking about them. Sometimes complex ideas require specific definitions to differentiate between distinct but related ideas. Philosophers do this all the time.

  2. The discussion of racism as it pertains to power structures wasn’t ‘redefined’ for political purposes. Some authors find the distinction between individual racial prejudice and institutional systemic racial prejudice to require different words. So words were chosen for the sake of their papers/books. And the technical use of the word has gotten into the mainstream. Words are just names we give ideas. We can call ‘racism’ ‘George’ and still have a talk about the problem of George in the US - so long as everyone is on the same page about how we’re using the word George.

But if someone says “X is racist (through the lens of power structure)” and someone replies “That’s not racist (as in individual racial prejudice)” these people aren’t talking about the same thing. They’re not having a debate on the issue. They’re fighting over the use of a word.

What I will agree with is that in our national discourse and even individual discourse, the word ‘racist’ is nebulous - some people mean it one way, some people mean it the other way. And it leads to all kinds of problems in terms of discussing the issue. Because as we see, it turns the conversation to the topic of language use, and not racism or racial prejudice.

1 Like

Can’t say I’m disappointed.

Earlier upthread though, we have people using the word in a manner completely inconsistent with any accepted definition.

Words mean things.
It doesn’t much matter how much you want it not to, you do not dictate the meaning.

In this case, the specific definition they are trying to force effectively exonerates bad behavior as long as it is perpetrated by someone of the right race.

1 Like

My comment was regarding the incoherence and nefarious action of those who only define racism through the prism of power structures for their own political ideology. This is a clear step back from both intelligence and honesty.

The key word there is ‘only’.

The word ‘racism’ has an accepted meaning. I can’t just redefine the phrase ‘car accidents’’ to mean ‘car accidents only involving red cars’ and expect to be coherent to someone using the accepted definition of the phrase ‘car accidents’.

We can talk about car accidents involving red cars but we can’t use the language of ‘car accidents’ to exclude all other colours except red.

This objection in no way claims that red cars can’t be involved in accidents the same way the objection is not that systems cannot be racist but racism cannot be redefined to only mean power systems and structures the same way car accidents cannot be redefined to mean only car accidents involving red cars.

It is a clear attempted redefinition of words to further a partisan ideology and it is wrong.

This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit