Transracial?

[laughing dog]

The word "racism", like nearly all words, is not defined stipulatively - except in the context of some philosophical arguments or similar -, but rather, it gets its meaning from its usage.

Then dictionaries are pointless. And, then, so is communication because you are basically using the Cheshire Cat approach to language.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The word "racism", like nearly all words, is not defined stipulatively - except in the context of some philosophical arguments or similar -, but rather, it gets its meaning from its usage.

Then dictionaries are pointless. And, then, so is communication because you are basically using the Cheshire Cat approach to language.

No, dictionaries are not meant to define words stipulatively. Rather, dictionaries (leaving aside technical dictionaries in different sciences, etc.) dictionaries are meant to investigate the meaning of the words in common speech - which they, in nearly all cases, gained by common usage -, and then provide one or more definitions that approximate the meaning or meanings of the term. Sometimes, they get it reasonably right. They act as a shortcut so that people can understand a conversation reasonably well without having learned the meaning of a term by familiarity with its usage, though they do not substitute it in terms of acquiring linguistic competence.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The dictionary doesn't push the language, it follows the language. As such it is still useful, not pointless.

 

[laughing dog]

The word "racism", like nearly all words, is not defined stipulatively - except in the context of some philosophical arguments or similar -, but rather, it gets its meaning from its usage.

Then dictionaries are pointless. And, then, so is communication because you are basically using the Cheshire Cat approach to language.

No, dictionaries are not meant to define words stipulatively. Rather, dictionaries (leaving aside technical dictionaries in different sciences, etc.) dictionaries are meant to investigate the meaning of the words in common speech - which they, in nearly all cases, gained by common usage -, and then provide one or more definitions that approximate the meaning or meanings of the term. Sometimes, they get it reasonably right. They act as a shortcut so that people can understand a conversation reasonably well without having learned the meaning of a term by familiarity with its usage, though they do not substitute it in terms of acquiring linguistic competence.

Dictionaries do not investigate meanings of word. They provide common understandings of words. When one uses a common word in an uncommon way (i.e. outside of the dictionary definition), then one is literally making things up.

In the context of this thread, "racism" does not commonly mean referring to race. JP's example is an example of stereotyping. In order for it to fall under the commonly understood meaning (at least by most dictionaries), it would need to also mean that Asians are either superior or inferior to another race.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Dictionaries do not investigate meanings of word. They provide common understandings of words. When one uses a common word in an uncommon way (i.e. outside of the dictionary definition), then one is literally making things up.

No, they do need to investigate what the word means, by looking at the common usage or usages of the words. In a sense, that would be the same as investigating the "common understanding", as long as the expression "common understanding" is used to mean "what people commonly mean by the words", i.e., their meaning. On the other hand, if "common understanding" means the most common explicit theories about what a word means, then no, that is not what they do. At any rate, what I say they do is correct, regardless of whether you are rewording it by saying "common understandings".

Now, of course, a person can use a common word in an uncommon way, and in doing so, they're either misusing the word (if they believe that they're using it in the usual sense), or providing a different definition if they so stipulate.

Regardless, the word "racist", like nearly all others, take their meaning from usage.

In the context of this thread, "racism" does not commonly mean referring to race.

What do you mean?
Obviously "racism" does not mean "referring to race", but it is about race. Or color, but color is being used (even if inaccurately) as a proxy for race.

JP's example is an example of stereotyping. In order for it to fall under the commonly understood meaning (at least by most dictionaries), it would need to also mean that Asians are either superior or inferior to another race.

No, that is not the case. JP's example is an example in which it is implied (for example) that White males are vastly less capable than Asians at math (e.g., "And as an asian, I'll do the math for you while driving"), and it is even said that in a mocking tone. It is an example of anti-White racism (not that JP actually means it, but it's the example).

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

It could also be a comment on Asian driving skills as well as on Asian math skills. There's more than one stereotype about Asians that could be described.

 

[Toni]

Perhaps discussing what the word 'is' means is pertinent here.

I don't think it is but it seems that at least one or two posters would disagree.

 

[laughing dog]

What do you mean?
Obviously "racism" does not mean "referring to race", but it is about race. Or color, but color is being used (even if inaccurately) as a proxy for race.

Why do you ask what I mean, when you clearly understood it in the subsequent sentence?

No, that is not the case...

Wrong. A stereotype, in and of itself, is not racism. Your analysis requires you to imbue intent of superiority/inferiority which is not written in the statement. The statement, as written, is a stereotype and nothing else.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

It could also be a comment on Asian driving skills as well as on Asian math skills. There's more than one stereotype about Asians that could be described.

It does not look to me like JP meant it that way, but if so, then whether it would be racist may depend on what JP meant. I would say it would be racist if he meant what I think he did.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Why do you ask what I mean, when you clearly understood it in the subsequent sentence?

No, I don't yet know what you mean by "In the context of this thread, "racism" does not commonly mean referring to race.". Do you mean that "racism" does not mean "referring to race", or something else?
If the former, obviously it does not mean that, but also obviously, that is irrelevant to the matter at hand, as no one here has suggested that "racism" means "referring to race".
My point in the subsequent sentence is my reply to that part of your post, and not based on an interpretation of your claim that "In the context of this thread, "racism" does not commonly mean referring to race.".

Wrong. A stereotype, in and of itself, is not racism. Your analysis requires you to imbue intent of superiority/inferiority which is not written in the statement. The statement, as written, is a stereotype and nothing else.

Of course, a stereotype, in an of itself, is not racism. The stereotype might even be true, and warranted. On the other hand, asserting a disparaging stereotype while not having evidence that warrants believing it, and on top of that doing so in a derogatory tone, surely would be an instance of racism (but see my reply to Jason above).

 

[Derec]

Then dictionaries are pointless.

As we all know, the only proper authority on definition of the word "racism" are leftist sociologists who want to restrict its meaning such that only white people can be racist and also that white people are racist unless they agree with aforementioned leftist sociologists.

 

[Politesse]

Neither "race" nor "racism" have ever been consistently defined. They are politically motivated terms, and each passing generation has re-purposed them for the needs of the day.

- - - Updated - - -

Then dictionaries are pointless.

As we all know, the only proper authority on definition of the word "racism" are leftist sociologists who want to restrict its meaning such that only white people can be racist and also that white people are racist unless they agree with aforementioned leftist sociologists.

See that's pretty weird, because I know a lot of leftist sociologists, and none of them would define racist in that fashion. What is your source for this assertion?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Then dictionaries are pointless.

As we all know, the only proper authority on definition of the word "racism" are leftist sociologists who want to restrict its meaning such that only white people can be racist and also that white people are racist unless they agree with aforementioned leftist sociologists.

See that's pretty weird, because I know a lot of leftist sociologists, and none of them would define racist in that fashion. What is your source for this assertion?

Start here

 

[Politesse]

See that's pretty weird, because I know a lot of leftist sociologists, and none of them would define racist in that fashion. What is your source for this assertion?

Start here

So you are claiming that this "Devka" is a leftist sociologist, and that he would agree with Derek's definition of racism?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

See that's pretty weird, because I know a lot of leftist sociologists, and none of them would define racist in that fashion. What is your source for this assertion?

Start here

So you are claiming that this "Devka" is a leftist sociologist, and that he would agree with Derek's definition of racism?

Devka claimed repeatedly that the definition he was using was widespread within Sociology even though it isn't.

 

[Politesse]

So you are claiming that this "Devka" is a leftist sociologist, and that he would agree with Derek's definition of racism?

Devka claimed repeatedly that the definition he was using was widespread within Sociology even though it isn't.

I don't see how that supports your point, then...

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It could also be a comment on Asian driving skills as well as on Asian math skills. There's more than one stereotype about Asians that could be described.

It does not look to me like JP meant it that way, but if so, then whether it would be racist may depend on what JP meant. I would say it would be racist if he meant what I think he did.

I meant it to be racist. That was the point. The post was my sarcastic attempt to mock racism and prejudice and bigotry all around.

 

[Derec]

So you are claiming that this "Devka" is a leftist sociologist, and that he would agree with Derek's definition of racism?

Devka claimed repeatedly that the definition he was using was widespread within Sociology even though it isn't.

I don't see how that supports your point, then...

You are forgetting that I qualified the "sociologists" with adjective "leftist".

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

It could also be a comment on Asian driving skills as well as on Asian math skills. There's more than one stereotype about Asians that could be described.

It does not look to me like JP meant it that way, but if so, then whether it would be racist may depend on what JP meant. I would say it would be racist if he meant what I think he did.

I meant it to be racist. That was the point. The post was my sarcastic attempt to mock racism and prejudice and bigotry all around.

But you can't be racist! You're not white!

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I meant it to be racist. That was the point. The post was my sarcastic attempt to mock racism and prejudice and bigotry all around.

But you can't be racist! You're not white!

I'm Asian. That means I'm kept a minority if compared to white people, but considered white if compared to black people. This gets rather complicated, doesn't it? It gets even more complicated if you care to distinguish yellow (Japan/China) from brown (Philippines) Asian, because I'm a half breed. So can I be racist? Who knows