>True - like how right now you're exploiting the history of
>your people to warp the definition of a word.

How am I exploiting the history of my people? While history provides a prime example to state my case, I didn't even mention history in my reply. I specifically pointed my finger at the modern day institutions that uphold white privilege.

And whatever words I threw into the discussion are defined according to its modern context.


Pathetic, but
>typical.

Indeed. You are pathetically typical. But I don't expect you to be any different.

Why not just say "institutional racism" if you
>mean "institutional racism" and not "racism"? At least by
>extention you are admitting that by every definition of
>"racism" in every English Dictionary in the world black
>Americans CAN BE RACIST. Good - you're making progress. PM
>me if you'd like some help making more.

Did you not read my reply, you illiterate gump? I said the definitions set by Websters lack no depth. That said, your argument lacks any real value because it is supported by illegitimate sources.