4 ms·

You're certainly welcome to believe that, but as several people here have repeatedly pointed out, that's not how the dictionary or common usage of the term unde

You're certainly welcome to believe that, but as several people here have repeatedly pointed out, that's not how the dictionary or common usage of the term understands it. If you insist on using nonstandard definitions of terms you shouldn't be surprised when you have a hard time getting your point across.

alexqgb 11y ago
And my point is "common among whom?" If the same percentage of black people and white people define a word in the same way then it safe to say that definition does not carry racist connotations. But if "common sense" actually means "common sense among white people only" then I'm sure you can see how inherently racist the concept (and the definition you cite) may be, and why it's time for more up-to-date understanding. Right now there's a lot of contention surrounding the definition of racism because the definitions in contemporary dictionaries does not reflect the understanding that racism is a structural problem. Focusing exclusively on behaviors and not on deeply rooted systems strikes victims of those unjust systems as a form of moral evasion. If you're not a committed to preserving and propagating racist systems, then you shouldn't have any problem changing the definition to one that everybody can agree on . And if you do have a problem with an insufficient definition…well, then maybe you're a part of the larger problem the people are now addressing. One more thought on definitions; remember that the US Constitution used to define black people as 3/5th of a human being for purposes of calculating the size of congressional delegations and 0/5th for everything else. The point here is prevailing definitions encapsulate broader social conventions. When dealing with words that have become bones of contention, it's advisable to make sure you're aware of the conventions the are being included in the definitions you choose to defend.
- pests 11y ago
  Then lets just ignore all words and communicate with newly-made hand signals that have no possibility of racial influence. So you say 'racism' has been co-opted by those in power? And then get angry that everyone uses this white-centric words to define the concept of racism without all the baggage of history? Its clear you are having communication problems. You already stated the word 'racism' has been redefined by those races in power - why do you keep using it then? If every rant about racism has to be accompanied by a long winded explanation of how the word 'racism' should really be defined you are only hurting your cause.

alexqgb 11y ago

And my point is "common among whom?" If the same percentage of black people and white people define a word in the same way then it safe to say that definition does not carry racist connotations. But if "common sense" actually means "common sense among white people only" then I'm sure you can see how inherently racist the concept (and the definition you cite) may be, and why it's time for more up-to-date understanding. Right now there's a lot of contention surrounding the definition of racism because the definitions in contemporary dictionaries does not reflect the understanding that racism is a structural problem. Focusing exclusively on behaviors and not on deeply rooted systems strikes victims of those unjust systems as a form of moral evasion. If you're not a committed to preserving and propagating racist systems, then you shouldn't have any problem changing the definition to one that everybody can agree on . And if you do have a problem with an insufficient definition…well, then maybe you're a part of the larger problem the people are now addressing. One more thought on definitions; remember that the US Constitution used to define black people as 3/5th of a human being for purposes of calculating the size of congressional delegations and 0/5th for everything else. The point here is prevailing definitions encapsulate broader social conventions. When dealing with words that have become bones of contention, it's advisable to make sure you're aware of the conventions the are being included in the definitions you choose to defend.

pests 11y ago
Then lets just ignore all words and communicate with newly-made hand signals that have no possibility of racial influence. So you say 'racism' has been co-opted by those in power? And then get angry that everyone uses this white-centric words to define the concept of racism without all the baggage of history? Its clear you are having communication problems. You already stated the word 'racism' has been redefined by those races in power - why do you keep using it then? If every rant about racism has to be accompanied by a long winded explanation of how the word 'racism' should really be defined you are only hurting your cause.