Accepting and Rejecting Changing Language

I recognize that, as an aging GenXer, introducing new meanings to terms I've used my entire life is a stretch sometimes.

For decades the official definition of vaccine had remained the same. Last year Webster changed the definition.

The definition of vaccine was: ‘A preparation of killed microorganisms, living attenuated organisms or living fully virulent organisms that is administered to produce or artificially increase immunity to a particular disease’

The definition now reads ‘a preparation that is administered (as by injection) to stimulate the body’s immune response against a specific infectious agent or disease: such as a: an antigenic preparation of a typically inactivated or attenuated pathogenic agent (such as a bacterium or virus) or one of its components or products (such as a protein or toxin)’

The definition of the word anti-vaxxer now reads 'A person who opposes the use of vaccines or regulations mandating vaccination.'

Definitions change. It's all apart of the slow, crawling evolution of humanity and language and is thus to be expected.

On the other hand:

Prior to last week, the definition of racism used by the Anti-Defamation League was that 'Racism is the belief that a particular race is superior or inferior to another, that a person's social and moral traits are predetermined by his or her inborn biological characteristics. Racial separatism is the belief, most of the time based on racism, that different races should remain segregated and apart from one another.'

The new definition is 'The marginalization and/or oppression of people of color based on a socially constructed racial hierarchy that privileges white people.'

Apparently, The View's Whoopi Goldberg was using the new definition on the show. "I said the Holocaust wasn't about race and was instead about man's inhumanity to man," Goldberg said Tuesday. "But it is indeed about race because Hitler and the Nazis considered Jews to be an inferior race."

She continued, "Now, words matter and mine are no exception. I regret my comments, as I said, and I stand corrected. I also stand with the Jewish people as they know and y'all know, because I've always done that."

Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt explained on the show that "There's no question that the Holocaust was about race. That's how the Nazis saw it as they perpetrated the systematic annihilation of the Jewish people across continents, across countries, with deliberate and ruthless cruelty."

Wait. What?

If, indeed, we are to swallow the definition of racism now displayed on the ADL website, Whoopi was entirely correct because, as she pointed out, The Germans and the Jews they murdered were both white.

The process of re-defining common terms is one that comes with time not by one ideological bent force-feeding their determined definition and expecting the rest if us to buy in without some discussion. If we accept this new definition of racism what then do we call it when a black guy beats the hell out of an Asian guy because he's an Asian guy? How about the anti-semitism that seems to be on the rise all over the world? How about when a Latino woman won't serve tacos to a white guy in a MAGA hat?

Seems like the cultural left forced in this new definition without much thought about what you call racism when it does not involve whites versus everyone else.

Before moving to Vegas, I remember having lunch with a close friend who happened to be Latina and had begun hanging her reputation on her ethnicity like a Cubs fan wore a jersey and ball cap. At the time, I had bought into the whole All White People Are Racist nonsense and I explained that, by that definition, I was racist.

Later, when this friend decided I was no longer her friend but her sworn enemy, I saw blasted on social media "He ADMITTED he was a racist!"

Shame on me, right?

After that, I decided to go back to more humane, less Marxist definition of racism but I can understand how Whoopi got caught up in the confusion. Been there, done that.

I recognize that, as an aging GenXer, introducing new meanings to terms I've used my entire life is a stretch sometimes. Confusion over meanings prevents any kind of real communication between adult types is going to be an issue. If I'm talking a blue streak about something I find to be racist and I'm leaning into the 'belief that a particular race is superior or inferior to another, that a person's social and moral traits are predetermined by his or her inborn biological characteristics' meaning and you're coming from the 'marginalization and/or oppression of people of color based on a socially constructed racial hierarchy that privileges white people' angle, well, we're talking about two completely different things with the same label.

It'd be like if you thought the word 'cake' meant sausages and I thought it meant paperclips. I guarantee the birthday party is gonna get weird.

When I use the word 'woman' I know what I mean. I mean a person born as a biological female. This is not to dismiss or minimize the rights or existence of transgender women but that's my definition. You can shame me, you can scream in my face, you can doxx me online—not going to change how I define the term.

If you claim you have been 'assaulted' I'm going to assume someone physically harmed you. I'm unlikely to see your hurt feelings, self-diagnosed trauma, or feelings of marginalization as 'assault.' This is not that I don't comprehend your hurt feelings, self diagnosed trauma, or marginalization, I merely do not see it in the same category as an assault. Come up with a different word and we'll find some common ground. Otherwise, you're just pissing into the wind.

Same for the term 'violence.' I get that you'd like to expand that definition to include your discomfort with ideas you find reprehensible but I'm not buying. I may even agree with you that certain ideas are disgusting and need to be combatted in some way but I'm one of those freedom of speech guys. You know, the best way to fight bad speech is with more speech types. Old school ACLU.

If you want to change the common terms we use, I'd suggest you persuade me to change my use rather than demand I accept your version. When you do, I get to point out the pitfalls I see (like the bizarre changes in the term 'racism') and we can work together to expand our mutually agreed upon definitions of the ever-changing world we live in because we live here together.