CMV: There is absolutely no consistent, nor necessary, precedent for insisting the word racism means "privilege+power" and it is in fact Orwellian in theory and in practice.
Firstly, let's establish that words don't actually "exist", and I will admit that at the end of the day, what really matters is what people mean, and not what they literally say. You could almost argue from that standpoint that semantics debates are pointless, but even so, words should exist to convey ideas clearly, and for there to be a redefinition of a word there needs to be a consistent justification.
When debating the definition of a word, three primary points have to be factored in:
0. The original definition of said word.
1. The literal meaning of the word, which is usually, if created within the last century, consistent with point 0.
2. The most common and current usage.
The importance of ether of these factors needs to be weighed with each other when in a semantics debate, that is a debate as to what a word should most correctly mean. No other factor need, nor should, be considered. 0 and 1generally hold precedence over 2, but if 2 heavily outweighs 0/1 through common usage and simply a matter of words organically changing over time, exceptions can be made depending on said word and circumstance.
For example, whilst the suffix "-phobic", derived from "phobia", literally means an irrational fear generally predicated by a subset of an anxiety disorder, the term "homophobic" has pretty much never been used to mean "an irrational fear of gay people." in common usage. So I think in that case reasonable leeway can be given for it's technically incorrect usage. In a scenario in which one is accused of being homophobic, for your only defense to be correcting their definition of it is, obviously, besides the point and somewhat pedantic, regardless of it being "true". You know what someone means when they say "homophobic". Ideally we'd use this word correctly, but in this case I don't think it is a huge deal.
I also do not believe the logic of 1 can be applied if the components of said term have changed over time, say they meant something completely different hundreds of years ago. It is irrelevant and using the generally accepted modern definitions to apply to point 1 would be correct. For example, presume the word phobia meant something different centuries ago, I wouldn't dredge up that ancient definition unless there was a real justification to.
On the other hand, I believe factor 0 should be evoked when the literal definition is non-applicable, I.E. the word in question is not built on multiple words and/or suffixes. An example I can use is Marxism/Communism. In common usage in the USA, "Marxism", "Communism", and related terms are used as euphemisms for taxes and even "big government". This is of course to the educated completely wrong usage of the terms as they have nothing to do with the ideologies of Marxism and Communism, and as such I believe a Marxist has the right to correct people on said definitions, especially because they don't have any other terms to use to describe their ideology. Socialism, on the other hand, can by some definitions be used to describe taxation, as it is an extremely broad term in practice that includes Communism but many other things as well.
Now as for the word racism, whilst it tends to be used as a smear term devoid of real content, we all generally have a relatively good idea of the ballpark of what said word should and is supposed to mean. You could argue its already somewhat non-specific usage demands someone to insist on a more correct usage, which I to an extant sympathize with, but this can only be based on points 1 and/or 0. There is once again, in my opinion, which I'd like to think is based on consistent analysis, no more internally consistent ways to argue for the "correct" usage of a term that is bereft of a weighing of points 0, 1, and 2.
I'd say a more consistent definition of racism then, weighing in all the factors and considering that 2 cannot be factored in much due to it already being nebulous, must then focus on 1 and 0, but more in the sense of refining it and cutting out all the baggage.
The word racism, broken down consists of the word "race" and the suffix "-ism". Race connotes an aggregate or presumed aggregate subdivision of humanity, the latter generally being social constructs at least to a point, such as "white". The suffix -ism means any sort of ideology/belief/doctrine/etc. So, we can then determine, weighing everything in, that the most concise definition of the word racism is, quite simply, any belief, doctrine, or action tied to race. That's it. There's no more logically consistent definition to give it. For example, if a black/white person kills a white/black person because of his race, that is racist. If a black/white person kills a white/black person because they were angry with them, then that is not racist. If I call a black person a nigger, that is racist, if I call a black person a retard, that is not racist. It is that simple. I also agree that calling a white person any term tied to degrading white people is "racist" as well. Whether these things are bad is predicated on whether or not said individual is hurt by said by being called said terms, not whether it is "racist" or not, otherwise one is legislating morality. I do not believe in inherently "coloring" terms emotionally, I think it is childish and, if academics are going to get involved in semantics, then they should seek to do away with emotionally charging words, or stay out of the subject entirely.
This finally raises the question as to why, forgive me if this term is hyperbolic, "social justice types" insist that the word racism in common usage should be the same as institutionalized racism, especially when they already have said term, a term which I have no objection to people using and to my knowledge isn't disagreed with because it is quite literally descriptive of what it, well, literally means. Why not just use the term institutionalized racism rather than fight a difficult uphill battle against the grain to redefine a word for such apparently arbitrary reasons when you already have a term? That term already exists and it's usage does not cause confusion in the same way, so where is the justification for the redefinition of the word racism?
I know why - because they want to wield the term's stigma. There is no other logical reason from their own interests to do such a thing. It is a form of psychological warfare. They already know that the term racism is horrendously stigmatized. By using Orwellian tactics to slur the word's definition towards their ends, they can wield it's power. Not only does this explain the reasoning, but it also explains the condescending and arrogant "matter-of-factly" attitude a lot of these types of people have, acting like they assume you should know what the "real" definition of racism is and seemingly acting surprised the other person is "using it incorrectly", when even in the hypothetical reality in which they somehow were "objectively correct", you'd think they'd expect the other person to use the more commonly used definition and be a bit more reasonable about it.
It is 100% based on wielding psychological stigma and nothing else. This at face value may seem like a valid tactic from their perspective, though not objectively "correct" by any means. As I said, once again, someone arguing for a correct, unbiased definition of a word not based on the points I have given has absolutely no objective right to claim their definition is correct. Arguing for correct semantics with any logic outside the semantics rubric can never be objectively correct. I'd also like to think a sane, objective person would and should frown on redefining a term solely based on an ideological agenda.
Now let's ignore points 0, 1, and 2 here and deconstruct the "logic" itself. A common argument I hear for the "redefinition" of the word racist is to, for instance, differentiate a white person being called a cracker from something like slavery and genocide. This reasoning is not the result of a logical train of thought. This implies that slavery and genocide are somehow worse DUE to privilege, and NOT because of the obvious fact that slavery and genocide are, simply, worse in and of themselves than a white person being called "cracker" - or a black person being called a "nigger" for that matter, which would be the logical moral line of thinking. Part of the logic is, for some insane, illogical reason, inverted. Slavery and genocide being worse than name calling in and of themselves should be an obvious fact to sane people. Redefining the word racist does nothing, inherently, to prove this point. I do not believe the fact that privilege is generally, though not always, required to commit genocide and especially slavery is a logical counter-argument against the aforementioned reasons.
The invariable result of this is that the stigmatized term racism, which following said agenda means "worse than" or at least is meant to evoke a more negative reaction based simply on the fact it is to be called "racist", is simply tied to privilege and not the action itself. The logical conclusion of this is that, in order to remain consistent, in a western country where whites (allegedly by their logic, this aspect I am not going to debate, confirm, or deny as it is not entirely relevant to the point of this CMV) have racial privilege - that if a white person is murdered for being white, this is to be seen as less terrible than if a black person is murdered for being black.
A sane person who isn't, as much as I hate to use this term, "anti-white", would obviously not agree with this assessment. If a person does not think it is less terrible to kill a white person for being white than it is to kill a black person for being black, irrelevant to privilege, there is simply no logical reason for said person to agree with forcibly re-defining racist as "privilege+power".
Ergo, no sane person who is not anti-white should support this re-definition. If a person does, then they are ether.
A). Ignorant and/or not making logical conclusions.
B). Legitimately anti-white.
A common counter to this is that "it is possible to be racist against whites in countries where non-whites have privilege." I contest this on the basis that the whole purpose of the word re-definition has no bearing or relevance to non-western countries, perhaps even in all non-English speaking countries depending on the stigma of said word's equivalents. The point, as we've established, of re-defining the word racist is to wield it's stigma. If the word, or equivalents of said word, are not stigmatized world-wide, then this whole agenda has no application outside of countries with said stigma.
You need a culture that is somewhat "politically correct" in the first place for the terms "racism" and "racist" or their closest equivalent terms to gain stigma, and many countries are not politically correct at all. Most countries in South America, Asia, Africa, and many other places are good examples. Basically this logic doesn't apply to any of these countries, so that comeback is ether poorly thought out at best, or proof of an anti-white agenda at worst.
I simply cannot for any reason see a sane, objective, or logical reason to insist on the word racist be redefined.
Felt this should be shared. You can join the discussion on reddit if you feel like it, read the subreddit's rules though (side bar).
http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/23bhyj/cmv_there_is_absolutely_no_consistent_nor/
