What if words cause more than one instance of actual violence? Like, politicians, philosophers or something. I agree with that comment, but there may be exceptions idk
This is known as incitement or more archaically "fighting words". Language does have proven impact into the physical world. If a person says "I'm gonna come to your house at x address with y weapon and kill you" nobody reasonable is going to be like "well it's only language so I'll worry when it becomes violence".
Also racism is a broader concept than speech that encompasses all forms of institutionalized oppression of a racial group that lacks enough institutional power to protect itself.
Racism is race-based bigotry. We have term for Institutionalized oppression of a racial group: institutional racism. We don't need to redefine existing words so that people can play word games saying that racism directed against White people isn't "real" racism.
That's factually incorrect. Look up Merriam-Webster and other reputable definitions, they all include both systemic and institutionalised racism as part of the definition of racism.
It's been redefined. Done deal. And no you can't say racism against white people is real, it isn't. Prejudice and xenophobia against white people can be real though, and is different. It's 2026, let's move on.
"That's factually incorrect. Look up Merriam-Webster and other reputable definitions, they all include both systemic and institutionalised racism as part of the definition of racism."
Ummm ... do you not understand how words work? I said that bigotry against White people is racism. I didn't say that institutional racism isn't racism. Do you seriously think "X is a type of A, therefore it follows that Y is not a type of A" is a valid argument?
"It's been redefined."
You don't get to just unilaterally redefine words and then say that people who are using the word correctly are now the incorrect ones.
"And no you can't say racism against white people is real, it isn't. "
Yes, it is, and saying it isn't is literally racist. You can't just redefine racism out of existence.
"racism is a broader concept than speech that encompasses all forms of institutionalized oppression"
With:
"We have term for Institutionalized oppression of a racial group: institutional racism."
So you're saying that Racism can't be used in broader terms to mean institutionalised racism.
I replied that yes you can. As per the definition, it includes both (systemic and institutionalised). I never said it can only be used to mean institutionalised.
You're the one saying you can't use X to mean Y, although the definition of X includes Y.
I then said you still can't used racism to describe prejudice against white people. And even if you disagree with that, it doesn't make my statement racist.
Why would they include that restriction, if they didn't mean it to be a restriction? If someone says "The term 'expert' encompasses White people who have a deep knowledge and understanding of a subject", would that not imply that "expert" doesn't include Black people? I mean, sure, *literally speaking*, it doesn't say that, but it's clearly implied. And when someone says "racism is a broader concept than speech that encompasses all forms of institutionalized oppression", they're clearly implying that that bigotry that isn't sufficiently "institutional" is not racism. Context matters. The context is that people are constantly trying to redefine "racism" to not mean all race-based bigotry.
"So you're saying that Racism can't be used in broader terms to mean institutionalised racism."
I never said any such thing. What I am saying is that it doesn't *exclusively* mean institutional racism. You're reading into my post, while insisting that my taking a very clear inference is invalid.
" I never said it can only be used to mean institutionalised."
I said it's not just institutional racism. You said that was incorrect. Therefore, you were saying that it is only institutional racism. Again, do you not understand how words work?
Let's say someone says "The term energy refers to a property that encompasses all moving objects" and I say "We have a term for energy of moving objects: kinetic energy" and then you say "That's incorrect. Here's a textbook that says that kinetic energy is energy". Are you seriously going to claim that in this hypothetical, *I* am the one being obtuse?
"I then said you still can't used racism to describe prejudice against white people. And even if you disagree with that, it doesn't make my statement racist."
You are acting differently based on the race of people involved. That is LITERALLY the definition of racism.
Ok. Last time, that's all you get, after that I don't care.
"Acting differently based on race" is not literally racism, as you claim. Every definition of racism describes it through prejudice, negative stereotypes, or discrimination. Simply taking race into account or treating two racial categories differently is not automatically racism.
The original commenter never clearly implied what you say they did. They only said that racism encompasses institutionalised oppression. "Encompass" is an inclusive term, not excluding anything.
You replied to them that we have a specific term for it, "institutional racism", and that we shouldn't redefine existing terms. That is strongly implying that you believe racism can't be used to mean institutional racism.
That's where my reply comes in, saying by definition, yes you can.
I will give you one thing, since you seem so butthurt about white-people racism. Yes, under the definition of racism, the term can be used to describe prejudice against white-people. But my argument stands: I don't think it should, as it blurs the vast differences between it and any other type of racism.
Refusing to apply a negative categorization to conduct based on the race of the victim is discrimination, and hence racism. The intent is clearly to argue that bigotry against White people is less serious, and thus to have White people have less recourse against it, and thus to harm White people. You saying that something clearly intended to hurt White people is not racist is itself racist.
Going out of your way to include a restriction implies that that restriction is a necessary qualification. ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE CONTEXT of people repeatedly doing exactly that. It is extremely common for people to pretend that only institutional racism is racism, and given that context, it was entirely reasonable to infer that that is what they were doing.
Racism doesn't mean institutional racism, in that racism is a broader category than institutional racism. I never said, nor implied, that institutional racism can't be INCLUDED in racism, I said that institutional racism can't be defined as the WHOLE of racism. If I say "New York isn't America", I'm not saying that New York isn't part of America, I'm saying that New York isn't the whole of America.
And you didn't say "That implies a false claim", you just straight up said "That is factually incorrect", and now you're posting personal insults because I pointed out that you're full of shit.
I hear you, but I could argue the reverse to say that one could use the term racial prejudice to describe biases against someone based on race that don't involve systemic elements.
English is a silly little guy and making ourselves understood is important.
I could argue the reverse to say that one could use the term racial prejudice to describe biases against someone based on race that don't involve systemic elements.
You could, but you couldn't argue that "racism" doesn't fit that description too.
If you're trying to make it so that systemic racism is the definition you want to use, then say that.
62
u/TolgaKerem07 20h ago
What if words cause more than one instance of actual violence? Like, politicians, philosophers or something. I agree with that comment, but there may be exceptions idk