Protagonist, Comrade Sharikov, is drafted to work at a factory. At the “work draft” office, he gives a passionate speech about a reactionary and counter-revolutionary nature of cats. Comrades in charge are convinced and set up the office of cat eradication because for revolution to succeed, such elements must be decisively dealt with. Comrade Sharikov is put in charge.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4945098&forum_id=2#43294667)

(I think you'll really appreciate my comment in case you missed it.)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4945098&forum_id=2#43294728)

It was about this movie:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_a_Dog_(1988_film)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4945098&forum_id=2#43294747)

https://youtu.be/iFt1qXQF3ZY

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4945098&forum_id=2#43294894)

https://lookmovie.io/movies/view/0096126-sobache-serdtse-1988

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4945098&forum_id=2#43294847)

https://youtu.be/iFt1qXQF3ZY

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4945098&forum_id=2#43294901)

(There's a reason why conservahero Christian Russian authors have been so revered by so many worldwide.)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4945098&forum_id=2#43294902)

"The true Right is never so grim. That’s why the Left hates its guts, the way a hangman must hate the victim who laughs and jokes on his way to the gallows. The Left is a conflagration. It devours and consumes in deadly dull earnest."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4945098&forum_id=2#43294890)

People of color seem to be part of “everyone”, and they seem likely to have the same sort of in-group identification as all other humans. But they are not racist. We know this because of articles that say things like “When white people complain about reverse racism, they are complaining about losing their PRIVILEGE” and admit that “the dictionary is wrong” on this matter. Or those saying whites calling people of color racist “comes from a lack of understanding of the term, through ignorance or willful ignorance and hatred”. Or those saying that “when white people complain about experiencing reverse racism, what they’re really complaining about is losing out on or being denied their already existing privileges.” Why Are Comments About White People Not Racist, Can Black People Be Racist Toward White People? (spoiler: no), Why You Can’t Be Racist To White People, et cetera et cetera.

All of these sources make the same argument: racism means structural oppression. If some black person beats up some white person just because she’s white, that might be unfortunate, it might even be “racially motivated”, but because they’re not acting within a social structure of oppression, it’s not racist. As one of the bloggers above puts it:

“Inevitably, here comes a white person either claiming that they have a similar experience because they grew up in an all black neighborhood and got chased on the way home from school a few times and OMG THAT IS SO RACIST and it is the exact same thing, or some other such bullshittery, and they expect that ignorance to be suffered in silence and with respect. If you are that kid who got chased after school, that’s horrible, and I feel bad for you…But dudes, that shit is not racism.”

I can’t argue with this. No, literally, I can’t argue with this. There’s no disputing the definitions of words. If you say that “racism” is a rare species of nocturnal bird native to New Guinea which feeds upon morning dew and the dreams of young children, then all I can do is point out that the dictionary and common usage both disagree with you. And the sources I cited above have already admitted that “the dictionary is wrong” and “no one uses the word racism correctly”.

Actually, I suppose one could escape a hostile dictionary and public by appealing to the original intent of the person who invented the word, but the man who invented the word “racism” was an activist for the forced assimilation of Indians who was known to say things like “Some say that the only good Indian is a dead one. In a sense, I agree with the sentiment, but only in this: that all the Indian there is in the race should be dead. Kill the Indian in him, and save the man.” My guess is that this guy was not totally on board with dismantling structures of oppression.

So we have a case where original coinage, all major dictionaries, and the overwhelming majority of common usage all define “racism” one way, and social justice bloggers insist with astonishing fervor that way is totally wrong and it must be defined another. One cannot argue definitions, but one can analyze them, so you have to ask – whence the insistence that racism have the structural-oppression definition rather than the original and more commonly used one? Why couldn’t people who want to talk about structural oppression make up their own word, thus solving the confusion? Even if they insisted on the word “racism” for their new concept, why not describe the state of affairs as it is: “The word racism can mean many things to many people, and I suppose a group of black people chasing a white kid down the street waving knives and yelling ‘KILL WHITEY’ qualifies by most people’s definition, but I prefer to idiosyncratically define it my own way, so just remember that when you’re reading stuff I write”? Or why not admit that this entire dispute is pointless and you should try to avoid being mean to people no matter what word you call the meanness by?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4945098&forum_id=2#43298805)

LOL

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4945098&forum_id=2#43298816)

Wow is this how nigs perceive whites when we do it? It is lulzy

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4945098&forum_id=2#43299124)