Does anyone in the media know what the word 'racist' means?

[krypton iodine sulfur]

OK, explain the loss of meaning.

Someone says to you "That guy is racist against women". Do you take his meaning to be:

A) "That guy is bigotted against women"
B) Anything else at all

If your answer is B, you're going to need to explain how you got that, because I don't see any way to not hear the meaning as A.

It literally means that person applies racism toward women. It would be a very odd scenario, but a person could think that east asian women are better at math than latin american women, yet make no comment on men from the same regions. That's literally what it would mean to be racist against women.

 

[Metaphor]

The meaning of the word "racism" does seem to have been expanding so that it's kind of becoming a synonym for bigotry in general, as opposed to simply for the subset of racially specific bigotry. I don't know if it's so much of an abuse of language as it is an evolution of it. I've heard it used in the context of people being racist against women or old people or specific countries.

You can literally just use them interchangably without any loss of meaning, so it's a moot and pedantic point.

You can use them as if they were interchangeable, certainly -- people do it all the time. "Racist against women" is eye-bleeding nonsense, and there's a term that's already in wide use which means exactly what the speaker intends: "sexist".

If whatever action you are describing needs to be falsely described as 'racist' in order for you to make your point, you may need to re-examine what point you were making. To use a less politically charged example, whenever I hear someone describe copyright infringement as theft, I correct them. Copyright infringement is not theft. Theft is theft. If you can't make a strong case against copyright infringement other than by falsely calling it theft, you need to re-examine your arguments.

 

[Bomb#20]

The meaning of the word "racism" does seem to have been expanding so that it's kind of becoming a synonym for bigotry in general, as opposed to simply for the subset of racially specific bigotry...

You can use them as if they were interchangeable, certainly -- people do it all the time. "Racist against women" is eye-bleeding nonsense, and there's a term that's already in wide use which means exactly what the speaker intends: "sexist".

Actually there's a subtle distinction in the semantics that makes "sexist" not quite carry the exact intended meaning. "Sexist" just means bigoted and discriminatory against a perceived-to-be-inferior sex, which means there's nothing to bar the person who uses it from from being accused right back of being sexist against men. But there's no way she can be "racist against men" because it only counts as racism when you're from the historical oppressor group.

 

[Metaphor]

You can use them as if they were interchangeable, certainly -- people do it all the time. "Racist against women" is eye-bleeding nonsense, and there's a term that's already in wide use which means exactly what the speaker intends: "sexist".

Actually there's a subtle distinction in the semantics that makes "sexist" not quite carry the exact intended meaning. "Sexist" just means bigoted and discriminatory against a perceived-to-be-inferior sex, which means there's nothing to bar the person who uses it from from being accused right back of being sexist against men. But there's no way she can be "racist against men" because it only counts as racism when you're from the historical oppressor group.

I use the actual meanings of words, not re-definitions where the sole purpose is to rhetorically downplay the moral wrongness of bigoted minorities.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Wait ... what? You think they're redefining words because they're sanctimonious religious hypocrites? I'm not following your argument.

 

[Metaphor]

Wait ... what? You think they're redefining words because they're sanctimonious religious hypocrites? I'm not following your argument.

I think the term 'racist' was redefined and is used by the fringe left to add qualifiers of 'racial discrimination + institutional power'. This means that in the United States, no black person can ever be called 'racist', no matter how much racial discrimination or bigotry they engage in, and no matter that they could hold institutional power of any person, and (seemingly) no matter how far in the future this may or may not occur.

I think the term was redefined because 'racist' has more cultural purchase than 'racial bigot', and to be able to dismiss any action as 'not racist' (because it was racial discrimination against a white person) is a convenient, if morally bankrupt, sleight of hand.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Wait ... what? You think they're redefining words because they're sanctimonious religious hypocrites? I'm not following your argument.

I think the term 'racist' was redefined and is used by the fringe left to add qualifiers of 'racial discrimination + institutional power'. This means that in the United States, no black person can ever be called 'racist', no matter how much racial discrimination or bigotry they engage in, and no matter that they could hold institutional power of any person, and (seemingly) no matter how far in the future this may or may not occur.

I think the term was redefined because 'racist' has more cultural purchase than 'racial bigot', and to be able to dismiss any action as 'not racist' (because it was racial discrimination against a white person) is a convenient, if morally bankrupt, sleight of hand.

Oh ya, I remember that argument. It was pretty stupid and that's it never caught on because of how confusing the definition was and nobody really understood what they were going on about. I don't think anyone's arguing for it here, though, so it's an aside.

"Racist" as "bigot" is kind of catching on because there's nothing at all confusing about it. It's grammatically incorrect, to be sure, but the meaning is clear.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

"Racist" as "bigot" is kind of catching on because there's nothing at all confusing about it. It's grammatically incorrect, to be sure, but the meaning is clear.

It's guessable, not clear. If the topic at hand deals with intersectionality, using 'racism' as a generic term for 'bigotry' will cause problems. That is not to suggest it's a common problem for most people, but it is an issue beyond grammar alone.

 

[Metaphor]

I think the term 'racist' was redefined and is used by the fringe left to add qualifiers of 'racial discrimination + institutional power'. This means that in the United States, no black person can ever be called 'racist', no matter how much racial discrimination or bigotry they engage in, and no matter that they could hold institutional power of any person, and (seemingly) no matter how far in the future this may or may not occur.

I think the term was redefined because 'racist' has more cultural purchase than 'racial bigot', and to be able to dismiss any action as 'not racist' (because it was racial discrimination against a white person) is a convenient, if morally bankrupt, sleight of hand.

Oh ya, I remember that argument. It was pretty stupid and that's it never caught on because of how confusing the definition was and nobody really understood what they were going on about. I don't think anyone's arguing for it here, though, so it's an aside.

"Racist" as "bigot" is kind of catching on because there's nothing at all confusing about it. It's grammatically incorrect, to be sure, but the meaning is clear.

I agree that argument is stupid, but while nobody in this thread has argued for it, it's certainly been argued for by posters on this board in other threads. Even stranger definitions of racism have been argued for. I no longer remember the details but something like 'racism is believing race is real'.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I agree that argument is stupid, but while nobody in this thread has argued for it, it's certainly been argued for by posters on this board in other threads. Even stranger definitions of racism have been argued for. I no longer remember the details but something like 'racism is believing race is real'.

But if they're not part of the current discussion, then you're not arguing against anyone's points by bringing them up.

Words get redefined and meanings change all the time. Arguing that one redefinition is silly isn't an argument against a different redefinition. The redefinition of racism to only apply to whites was a nonstarter because so much meaning of the word was lost in using it that way and it introduced a whole lot of confusion about what it was that the person was saying. Redefining racism to mean general bigotry does not, since doing so does not sacrifice any meaning in the phrase and there's no confusion about what's being said.

The phrase "he's racist against women", while grammatically incorrect, keeps it perfectly clear what the person is saying, which is why it's becoming less and less grammatically incorrect. That makes it not comparable to a phrase such as "black people can't be racist". Just like bigot now refers to non-religious matters, despite the derivation of the word literally being "by god", racism is simply a word which is getting a broader definition without sacrificing any meaning.

 

[Metaphor]

I agree that argument is stupid, but while nobody in this thread has argued for it, it's certainly been argued for by posters on this board in other threads. Even stranger definitions of racism have been argued for. I no longer remember the details but something like 'racism is believing race is real'.

But if they're not part of the current discussion, then you're not arguing against anyone's points by bringing them up.

Words get redefined and meanings change all the time. Arguing that one redefinition is silly isn't an argument against a different redefinition. The redefinition of racism to only apply to whites was a nonstarter because so much meaning of the word was lost in using it that way and it introduced a whole lot of confusion about what it was that the person was saying. Redefining racism to mean general bigotry does not, since doing so does not sacrifice any meaning in the phrase and there's no confusion about what's being said.

The phrase "he's racist against women", while grammatically incorrect, keeps it perfectly clear what the person is saying, which is why it's becoming less and less grammatically incorrect. That makes it not comparable to a phrase such as "black people can't be racist". Just like bigot now refers to non-religious matters, despite the derivation of the word literally being "by god", racism is simply a word which is getting a broader definition without sacrificing any meaning.

There are already words that describe these actions. There wasn't some great void in the English language where we were at a loss to describe being prejudiced against a gender. It's called sexism.

You may have accepted English dying by degrees, Tom, but I haven't.