4 ms·

I'd start here - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism #1 leads to #3 leads to #2. But there is

I'd start here - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism #1 leads to #3 leads to #2. But there is a lot more to it. Not a simple concept. There is a lot of reading to do if you'd like to understand more. Can provide some links.

Inconel 10y ago
Isn't it increasing argued that the dictionary definition of racism is only one possible definition? I've heard it stated many times that the newer excepted definition involves the traditional aspect of racism coupled with the component of power. That is to say that racism is prejudice plus power. As an example, a minority in the US may be prejudiced or bigoted, but they cannot be racist since they lack the societal power that whites enjoy. Thus only whites can be racist. Just to be clear, I'm not endorsing one definition over the other, I only meant to illustrate that even seemingly well defined words can have different meanings.
- John23832 10y ago
  Wouldn't your given definition be a working combination of the given definitions from Webster?
  - Inconel 10y ago
    You're correct. I should have been more clear. My main point was that racial prejudice alone (#3 in the above link), minus the power component, wouldn't be enough to satisfy the requirements of racism under some definitions.
- selllikesybok 10y ago
  What you're referring to the as the "traditional aspect" is #3 in the linked page. #3 coupled with power is #2 in the linked page.
  - Inconel 10y ago
    Good point, although I think it could be argued that there could be a political doctrine based on racism at say the local or regional level, that wouldn't be widespread enough at the societal level to qualify as racism under some definitions. For example you could live in a city or town that adopts discriminatory laws against whites, this would meet the political doctrine aspect, but it still wouldn't be widespread enough in American society to qualify as racism. I'm not very smart though so you should keep that in mind, I could be totally off base here.
sharemywin 10y ago
I know this is going to come off like a "smart ass" But, I really curious what people think. Can someone be a bigot towards racists? I've heard the argument that the left is intolerant of intolerance and there for hypocritical, which sort of on it's face sounds plausible but seems more like an alt-fact to me. But I can't put my finger of why. It kind of reminds me of the time I was arguing with my brother and his response was "I don't believe in logic" How do you deal with people that refuse to argue with logic and facts?
- talmand 10y ago
  I would say these days anything along the lines of what you are asking is difficult to answer. The language concerning such topics have been so muddled with people's opinions of what words actually mean that no one fully understands what the other side is trying to say. Which only ends in personal attacks. It is one thing to try to deal with people who refuse to argue with facts; it's quite another to deal with people who refuse to accept that their can be different interpretations of the same facts by different people.
- humanrebar 10y ago
  > How do you deal with people that refuse to argue with logic and facts? This is a good point, and circles back to the original thought in this thread. When words are unclear, how can you discuss logic and facts? People don't have the patience (nor should they) to sit down and cooperatively define dozens of key terms each time they have a meaningful discussion about the direction of society, culture, and government. Relabeling and redefining things to assert power (instead of reasoning with others) inhibits cooperative reason and is therefore, in my mind, irrational and harmful.
  - sosuke 10y ago
    Why shouldn't people have the patience to define their language before having a discussion? Your last line seems to indicate that you think having unchanged definitions to words is a good thing. My wife and I define things to each other frequently. We often are saying the same things but confusing each others meanings because of wording.

Inconel 10y ago

Isn't it increasing argued that the dictionary definition of racism is only one possible definition? I've heard it stated many times that the newer excepted definition involves the traditional aspect of racism coupled with the component of power. That is to say that racism is prejudice plus power. As an example, a minority in the US may be prejudiced or bigoted, but they cannot be racist since they lack the societal power that whites enjoy. Thus only whites can be racist. Just to be clear, I'm not endorsing one definition over the other, I only meant to illustrate that even seemingly well defined words can have different meanings.

John23832 10y ago
Wouldn't your given definition be a working combination of the given definitions from Webster?
- Inconel 10y ago
  You're correct. I should have been more clear. My main point was that racial prejudice alone (#3 in the above link), minus the power component, wouldn't be enough to satisfy the requirements of racism under some definitions.
selllikesybok 10y ago
What you're referring to the as the "traditional aspect" is #3 in the linked page. #3 coupled with power is #2 in the linked page.
- Inconel 10y ago
  Good point, although I think it could be argued that there could be a political doctrine based on racism at say the local or regional level, that wouldn't be widespread enough at the societal level to qualify as racism under some definitions. For example you could live in a city or town that adopts discriminatory laws against whites, this would meet the political doctrine aspect, but it still wouldn't be widespread enough in American society to qualify as racism. I'm not very smart though so you should keep that in mind, I could be totally off base here.

sharemywin 10y ago

I know this is going to come off like a "smart ass" But, I really curious what people think. Can someone be a bigot towards racists? I've heard the argument that the left is intolerant of intolerance and there for hypocritical, which sort of on it's face sounds plausible but seems more like an alt-fact to me. But I can't put my finger of why. It kind of reminds me of the time I was arguing with my brother and his response was "I don't believe in logic" How do you deal with people that refuse to argue with logic and facts?

talmand 10y ago
I would say these days anything along the lines of what you are asking is difficult to answer. The language concerning such topics have been so muddled with people's opinions of what words actually mean that no one fully understands what the other side is trying to say. Which only ends in personal attacks. It is one thing to try to deal with people who refuse to argue with facts; it's quite another to deal with people who refuse to accept that their can be different interpretations of the same facts by different people.
humanrebar 10y ago
> How do you deal with people that refuse to argue with logic and facts? This is a good point, and circles back to the original thought in this thread. When words are unclear, how can you discuss logic and facts? People don't have the patience (nor should they) to sit down and cooperatively define dozens of key terms each time they have a meaningful discussion about the direction of society, culture, and government. Relabeling and redefining things to assert power (instead of reasoning with others) inhibits cooperative reason and is therefore, in my mind, irrational and harmful.
- sosuke 10y ago
  Why shouldn't people have the patience to define their language before having a discussion? Your last line seems to indicate that you think having unchanged definitions to words is a good thing. My wife and I define things to each other frequently. We often are saying the same things but confusing each others meanings because of wording.