Proposal To Change The Definition Of A Minor Change: Fill & Download for Free

Who the hell said it can’t be amended again? If you want to amend it, go for it. Of course you have to get a 2/3 majority in both the House and the Senate to even propose it. Then 3/4 of the states have to ratify it. Good luck.

Short Version:This article is silly. It’s written by an 18-year old. I normally wouldn't call out the age, but the author speaks from a position of glaring inexperience with adult life. His reasoning is essentially this:I enjoy saying racist things and racism is a big part of my identity. But people regularly call me out on my racism. I don’t like that. Instead of just not being racist, I want to redefine racism so I feel better that my racist behavior is no longer racist.I'm not racist if I change the meaning of the word!Amazingly, people keep telling me that word games don't make me not racist. So--instead of just not being racist--I call them racists for not re-defining “racism” to exclude my racist ideas.There. I just saved you from reading this childish nonsense.Long version:The question’s call is extremely broad: what do you think about the article?Generally, arguments about definitions don’t interest me. It usually involves someone saying “my definition is better than your definition”. Which misses the point that you’re you’re playing King of the Hill over a word itself, instead of addressing the underlying ideas that each person is using the word to represent.In short, this type of argument often devolves to an amateur hour of the worst kind.On to the article. The first sentence:“Racism as an ideology originated in the 17th century…”is sooooooo demonstrably wrong, the author should have just stopped writing there. You’ve almost disqualified yourself from having an opinion there.But he goes on:“It would simply be incorrect to deny that the history of racism has been (and continues to be) one of white supremacy as the label “white” has always been an indication of superiority.”—What in the world is he talking about? Have you ever been to Asia? Or Africa? I mean, my Lord… how demonstrably ignorant… Racism is endemic to human kind. For both bad (and good reasons) which we won't go into right now. (And I think that's an interesting litmus test right there: if you can't articulate a rational reason that human societies historically adopt racist practices, you probably have a very closed mind.)Oh. Wait. The author is 18 years old. Knows virtually nothing of the world. Probably lacks realistic perspective about the prevalence and kinds of racism as actually practiced by humanity. So we can forgive him: he’s just personally concerned with white people and white supremacy.He writes:As someone with a large online social justice platform, a day does not go by without someone sending me a screenshot of the “definition of racism”, followed up with a paragraph about how I am the real racist for critiquing white supremacy.People aren’t calling him a “real racist for critiquing white supremacy.”As a matter of fact, this 18 y.o. holds some racist views about white people; applies the phrase “white supremacy” rather liberally; and people quite accurately say that he is being racist. But like most racists, he just doesn’t understand that he is expressing racist ideas, makes endless excuses, and doesn't really care.So, I’ll bullet point a few more points.The article continues that “many of us were taught when we were little that racism is simply disliking someone based on the color of their skin. We were taught that it is a two-way street and that it can happen to anyone. We were taught that racism is simply prejudice toward any race.”This is pretty reasonable and obvious. Most dictionaries have a definition similar to that; that the definition of racism itself doesn’t self-referentially engage in racism.Dictionaries are inventories of words as people actually and commonly use them. They are descriptive, not prescriptive. People use the above, common definition to mean racism—because that is what they mean when they utter “racism”: prejudice based upon race or skin color. Full stop.If you use a very different definition of racism that adds “extra stuff”, a whole lot of people (1) won’t know what you mean, and (2) are probably going to tell you you’re wrong.The above principle shouldn’t be surprising. You can apply it to any word. i.e. “racism” doesn’t operate by any special word rules.But the author writes:“It is for those white people that I have listed below some of the many reasons why the “definition of racism” is wrong.”But, as above, that’s just not how words work. Words have socially constructed meanings.People use the word “racism” to mean what they were taught it means: “prejudice based upon skin color.” Which is why tribal groups in Africa can be racist. And racism is pervasive in Asia, parts of Europe, and Russia.Regardless, he goes on to argue why the definition of “racism” that nearly everyone uses is wrong. And that it should actually mean something more like:Racism is prejudice, by white people against non-white people, based upon skin color.In short. He proposes that the broad definition of racism should itself incorporate and adopt systemic racism.He argues that minorities have small influence on the social construction of words. So--handwaving here--a culture-neutral word which describes should discriminate based on race.The mental gymnastics are just mindblowing. I respond briefly to his “arguments”:“Dictionaries provide a simplistic view of words.”He argues that dictionaries cannot explain every aspect of a word.Well, so? Does anyone think they do?Dictionaries are not encyclopedias. They are lists of word meanings. Expecting to explore “every aspect of a word” in a dictionary is unreasonable.Dictionaries describe what words mean. As people actually use them. And they all use a similar definition to the one he says is wrong.That doesn't mean their wrong. It means you don't like the definition.In this case, he doesn't like the definition because it’s not racist enough.“Dictionaries are written and edited by white men.”His argument is that white men wrote it, therefore it is wrong and they have no credibility about racism.Well—as should be obvious—his argument is itself racist. If you use the common definition of racism.It really demonstrates what’s happening: he wants to redefine racism to shield himself from criticism of his own racism—that’s literally how the article starts: He’s complaining that people are calling him racist. So, he wants his re-definition “racism” to be a defense mechanism.I mean, it’s just laughable and sad for the author to make such a racist argument while arguing that the common definition of “racism” isn’t racially discriminating.Dude. You're not a social justice warrior. You're just an unapologetic racist.“Racism is systemic.”The argument here is just bad. He argues—unconvincingly—that the -ism suffix of racism implies a system of institutionalized white supremacy.Revisit the common definition. That’s not true.Now, I’m not saying that racism cannot be systemic. Clearly that would be wrong. But it also doesn’t follow that systemization is a defining characteristic of racism. When people say “racism” they are almost never referring to a system of racism, c.f. apartheid, segregation. So, you should not impute this huge “extra" characteristic to the word. (Unless the context makes it appropriate.)But—really, quite amazingly—the author freely admits that “people of color can certainly be prejudiced toward white people.”Essentially, he’s trying to distinguish racism from prejudice.Except most people already have a common word to mean “prejudice due to race”:RACISM.So—in common person language—the author has just admitted:“people of color can certainly be racist.”So, the whole article is pretty pointless.The author actually thinks that “people of color” can be racist. He just doesn’t want to use “racist" to describe it--because of their skin color?Yeah. That's racist.He insists that it’s not racist because there is no “system of oppression which oppresses white people.”(Foremost, author needs to check his privilege there. A whole lot of white people are systemically oppressed—but that’s not the point of this article. And a discussion for another day.)BUT—until very recently in history—no one has ever used “racism” to mean “prejudice against a person because of the color of the skin where the person is also subject to systems of oppression.”And that last part is the peculiar part. It’s the cultural Marxism of contemporary politics and culture where everything must be interpreted through the lens of class warfare and oppression. Which is why no one really uses the racist definition the author proposes; this attempt to re-define racism is very new in history. People have not adopted it.In conclusion, author defends his own racism by arguing that white people use the dictionary definition of racism as a defense mechanism. No, they don’t. They use the word “racism” in a race-neutral way to describe prejudice based upon skin color. In reality, the author is specially pleading that his racist definition of racism means that his own racism is okay.It’s not.

Do you know when the words socialism and secularism is added in to our constitution preamble?It is not in 1948 as many thought.It was through 42nd. Amendment during Emergency by Indira Gandhi in 1975.The 42nd Amendment changed the description of India from a "sovereign democratic republic" to a "sovereign, socialist secular democratic republic", and also changed the words "unity of the nation" to "unity and integrity of the nation".Before discussing why it has been changed, first how the word secularism is misquoted by present politicians should be understood.What is its correct definition?"indifference to, or rejection or exclusion of, religion and religious considerations". In certain context, the word can refer to anti clericalism, atheism, desire to exclude religion from social activities or civic affairs, banishment of religious symbols from the public sphere, state neutrality toward religion, the separation of religion from state, or disestablishment.So it is not following all the religions or tolerant towards all religions.It is rejection of any religion during the course of a governance.So practically a Government should be an atheist.After Independence there was extensive discussion on Secularism and its inclusion in constitution preamble.Dr.Ambedkar, chairman of constitution assembly opposed secular word to be aligned with our constitution and Nehru seconded him.The first mention of this word appeared in constitution Assembly on 15th. November, 1948 by K.T.Shah , who proposed to add this word in our constitution.Let us read what his proposal in his own words.‘I beg to move that in clause 1 of 1, after the words shall be (a)the words Socialism, Federalism and Secularism be included”.The amended article or clause should be read as follows “India shall be a Secular, Federal and Socialist Union of States”For this proposal, the vice president, drafting committee Sri. H.C.Mhkherjee commented as following.“Are we really honest when we say that we are seeking to establish a Secular state? If your idea of keep and have a secular state, it follows inevitably that we can not afford to recognize Minorities based upon religion”Basing on that principle it was not included in constitution in 1948.Then why it was added in 1975.We all know how Indira Gandhi declared emergency in 1975 after Allahabad high court unseated her. So to make her election legal, she has made the Parliament to pass so many amendments, keeping all opposition members in Jail.One of them being 42nd. Amendment, which change our preamble of the constitution.The 42nd Amendment also amended Preamble and changed the description of India from "sovereign democratic republic" to a "sovereign, socialist secular democratic republic", and also changed the words "unity of the nation" to "unity and integrity of the nation".Communist parties wholeheartedly supported the emergency.What is the reason behind adding those words in the preamble?Why Indira Gandhi did not care the warning of Ambedker that adding those words will change the context of the constitution?The only reason being Soviet Influence, through communist parties India.Did Indira became a stooge of Soviet Union?If we read the former KGB agent Mithrokin Archieve of 25,000 dark secrets , we will know the truth.Since it is not part of question, I am not describing it.The preamble of the constitution is changed to satisfy Soviet Union.JAI HINDSource:- Saikrishna vides idi nijam