Sorchist

That is a pretty wild definition of “racism” as “the idea that there are races.”

But I kind of see how you got there.

The idea that human beings can be carved up along certain lines (demarcated by skin color and ancestry) and that there are significant differences between human capability across these dividing lines - and that justifies power differences and relationships of oppression between those groups – those are the ideas behind racism, which expresses itself in oppression and injustice.

But the fact that people do carve up humanity along those lines, and therefore people find themselves put in these categories we call “races,” and have different experiences and opportunities based on which one they find themselves in – that’s a fact. It’s not racist to acknowledge it – indeed, in a way, it would be racist to deny it because it would be denying the reality of oppression.

So “the idea that there are races” = “people are inherently and biologically divided up into ‘black’, ‘white’, etc and this indicates fundamental differences between them” – that’s racism

“the idea that there are races” = “there are ‘races’ because there are structures in the world which are built on the idea of ‘races’ having inherent biological differences, and these structures affect people” – that’s accurately recognizing that racism exists.

Does that make sense?

I’d say that having three different words for “because” increases nuance. As the link to merriam-webster’s article pointed out, you get a nuance of formality between “because” and “as”; “as” is somewhat more formal. I’m not sure if there’s another nuance between “because” and causal “since” but smart money is on there being one (if you survey the use of the two I bet you will find there are very subtle differences of usage there – there almost always are nuances of difference between supposedly synonymous words, even if they’re only differences like level of formality).

I don’t think you can put this at the feet of BIG DICTIONARY.

Dictionaries are generally descriptivist and don’t preach. It’s style guides and individual angry language weirdos who preach.

Do you live in a country where the government would put a gun to YouTube’s head and say 'YOU HAVE TO KEEP BROADCASTING THIS MAN’S CHANNEL, PUT ADS ON IT, AND SHARE THE AD REVENUE WITH HIM, WHETHER YOU WANT TO OR NOT, UNTIL AND UNLESS HE IS CONVICTED OF A CRIME"?

That seems weird.

Bold of you to assume he started with actual data

Ah yes, it was all a false flag, instigated by the government to take away our freedoms, I get it

That next year that transition of power came under direct attack

I’m pretty sure Obama allowed power to be transferred peacefully to Trump, just like every other president had before him.

You can still make websites, fam. And you can go to websites other people have made. Nothing ever changed there. You just left it behind and went onto social media.

Also if you’re banned from a place, you’re not in a “void that is inescapable,” you’re just not in that place anymore. You can go to other places. If you think not being on a particular piece of social media is a “void that is inescapable,” you’ve decided that everything outside that social media system is a “void,” and that’s on you.

Yay, our carcereal state subjects people to random violence, and it’s OK because one of the people it happened to, happens to be a loathsome monster!

Lol I would have never in a million years figured out how to do that, and it’s something I have kinda wanted to do – the fact that the home page is a mix of posts from various Lemmies and Kbins and whatever meant that I have very little idea what actually was on kbin. Thank you!