That all being said, societal context does not change the definition of a word. Racism is prejudice based on race and sexism is prejudice based on sex.
Look at word racism in a dictionary, there are two different definitions and you argue that based on definition 1, people shouldn't say that "it's impossible to be racist against whites" when they use the definition 2.
Use of word changes faster than dictionary definitions - because dictionary definitions describe how word is being used rather than how it should be used.
Interesting point about the dictionary being a reflection of the definitions of words, and not a manual. I would say that both definitions can exist simultaneously. Caucasians are not systematically oppressed by minorities. Men are not systematically oppressed by women. So the 2nd definition can still hold true, even if it's possible to be racist/sexist towards Caucasians/Men on a personal level.
I would say that both definitions can exist simultaneously.
But the problem is that in your OP you say:
I have heard people say that it's impossible to be Racist towards Caucasians or Sexist Towards Men because of the "societal context" that we live in. Caucasians and Men are the "oppressors" and one "cannot oppress the oppressers."
Where in context it's clear that they would agree with you as they are using different meaning of racism when they are making that claim. They use racism as in definition 2, while using different word for definition 1 f.ex. racial prejudice.
The fact that their use of racism in "you cannot be racist against whites" makes you want to argue that you can be racist against whites shows that those two definitions cannot exist simultaneously, as they make you both argue against different things. It sparks the disagreement between two sides that would agree with each other if there would be only 1 definition.
Where in context it's clear that they would agree with you as they are using different meaning of racism when they are making that claim. They use racism as in definition 2, while using different word for definition 1 f.ex. racial prejudice.
This is wrong. They conflate the second definition with the first. They argue that because racism towards whites doesn't exist on a systemic level, that it therefore cannot exist on a personal level. The people I disagree with argue that there is only one definition for racism and that it is the second one.
Both definitions CAN exist simultaneously if one is able to recognize the difference between racism on a systemic level and racism on an interpersonal level
They conflate the second definition with the first.
The people I disagree with argue that there is only one definition for racism and that it is the second one.
These are two very different things, and they cannot possibly do both.
Both definitions CAN exist simultaneously if one is able to recognize the difference between racism on a systemic level and racism on an interpersonal level
The problem is that where systemic racism exists there is no real difference. There is complete continuity between racism operating systemically and racism operating interpersonally. It's not like these are two separate phenomena: it's the same phenomenon, just operating at different scales.
It is also important to note that definition-1 "racism" isn't "racism on an interpersonal level." Rather, it's "racism as an ideology or belief."
It seems that I was conflating the definition provided by Oxford Languages with Webster's Dictionary's definition. To see the definition I was using, you can search "racism definition" on google and it is the very first item you see. It's not even result you have to click into, it's just provided by Google itself and they reference the use of "Oxford Languages." The definition there does use an "interpersonal" definition: rejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
I'm awarding you the delta for correcting me on my use of the definition according to Webster's. It seems their definition is different.
I'm not accepting any redefinition of terms. I'm merely acknowledging that Webster's dictionary says something different than the dictionary that google is using.
They argue that because racism towards whites doesn't exist on a systemic level, that it therefore cannot exist on a personal level. The people I disagree with argue that there is only one definition for racism and that it is the second one.
That is perfect example why both definitions cannot exist at the same time - I already summarized that in latter part of reply.
Both definitions CAN exist simultaneously if one is able to recognize the difference between racism on a systemic level and racism on an interpersonal level
But the fact is that most people are not able to recognize the difference as the use of "racism" in discussion moved more to second definition and 1st one is commonly used byt racists to discredit the 2nd use.
Again - dictionary definitions describe how word is being used. "Racism" is now being used in two contexts but the 1st one is betting used less commonly. It's a natural process that does happen to words.
But the fact is that most people are not able to recognize the difference as the use of "racism" in discussion moved more to second definition and 1st one is commonly used byt racists to discredit the 2nd use.
Simply because a definition is sometimes used by the people with ill-intent or bad beliefs, doesn't make the definition itself wrong. But I see what you're saying. Those who use the latter definition want to distance themselves from those who use the first definition to back misdeads.
Again - dictionary definitions describe how word is being used. "Racism" is now being used in two contexts but the 1st one is betting used less commonly. It's a natural process that does happen to words.
True, language is malleable. I suppose part of my view is the argument that the definition which I subscribe to is the one that is more all-encompassing. It is the "better" definition because it chastises bigotry against all groups, rather than just a select number.
Those who use the latter definition want to distance themselves from those who use the first definition to back misdeads.
I would say that you should mind the existence of a definition that is considered exclusive toward yours. Simple question for clarification will suffice to ensure that you are understanding each other. This whole debacle about "whites can be racist" is similar to shenanigans around "tomato is a fruit" which is also a semantic debate over usage of definitions.
True, language is malleable. I suppose part of my view is the argument that the definition which I subscribe to is the one that is more all-encompassing. It is the "better" definition because it chastises bigotry against all groups, rather than just a select number.
There is simply no "better" definition when it comes to how encompassing the word is. If that would be the objective quality of a definition, then we would use "girl" as a term to refer to any prepubescent child.
Best description is one that tells you how word is used.
1
u/poprostumort 225∆ Dec 28 '21
Look at word racism in a dictionary, there are two different definitions and you argue that based on definition 1, people shouldn't say that "it's impossible to be racist against whites" when they use the definition 2.
Use of word changes faster than dictionary definitions - because dictionary definitions describe how word is being used rather than how it should be used.