>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.