I don’t think you understood my objection (and based on the number of down-votes it looks like you are not alone). Trying again:
When people say “I’m not racist” they generally mean “I did nothing wrong”, because racism is widely accepted to be bad by definition. Take his opening paragraph:
People widely exclude romantic and sexual partners on the basis of race. This is claimed not to be racism by those who have these attitudes, but it is [according to my own personal definition, which can be found in Addendum 2].
The people claiming “it is not racist to only date members of specific races” usually mean “it is not morally wrong to only date members of specific races”. When he says, “but it is [racism, under my personal definition]”, he is not actually contradicting the claim these people are making. They have never heard of him or his personal definition.
Because racism is generally accepted to be bad by definition, people fight very hard to promote their preferred definitions. Whoever controls the definition, controls morality. The conflict is so heated that the Merriam-Webster Dictionary entry on the word has the following disclaimer:
The lexicographer’s role is to explain how words are (or have been) actually used, not how some may feel that they should be used, and they say nothing about the intrinsic nature of the thing named or described by a word, much less the significance it may have for individuals. When discussing concepts like racism, therefore, it is prudent to recognize that quoting from a dictionary is unlikely to either mollify or persuade the person with whom one is arguing.
Replacing vaguely defined words like “racism” with more precise words will help to promote clearer thinking in both yourself and readers.
In this case, not tabooing the word “racism” lead to
A claim using an undefined word, where you have to scroll all the way to Addendum 2 to find out what he means.
Confused thinking, where he contradicted a claim some people made based a definition those people weren’t using and have never heard of.
Saying that “I’m not racist” means “I did nothing wrong” is actually making up a definition. That is not a criterion used in talking about racism pretty much anywhere in academia. “Sexual racism” is an apt term as all the behaviors I can think to attach to that label squarely fall within the ordinary language definitions I see here, here, here, etc. It is implausible that “racism” is only a valid label to apply to things like employment choices, but not to sexual choices.
I don’t think we should be held hostage by the conversational standards of social media. In the common discourse “eugenics” is synonymous with evil. I am still going to use the term “eugenics”, and not going to shuffle around to try to find adjacent pointers. I do taboo “racism”—I have an addendum talking about what my mental model for that label is. You don’t like that you have to scroll down to read it? I don’t think that’s a big issue, sorry.
We have all four definitions in play at the same time:
Common usage (Racism is bad by definition, and “I’m not racist” means “I did nothing wrong”)
Merriam-Webster
A subculture consisting of parts of academia (Racism = Power + Prejudice)
Your custom definition (a big cluster of correlated tendencies in belief)
Having four different definitions for the same word is very confusing!
“Sexual racism” is an apt term as all the behaviors I can think to attach to that label squarely fall within the ordinary language definitions I see here, here, here, etc.
a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
behavior or attitudes that reflect and foster this belief : racial discrimination or prejudice
the systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of another
a political or social system founded on racism and designed to execute its principles
Only dating members of specific races could be “racism” under 1b if it reflects a belief that “race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race”. But in that case, the person in question is already a racist, so the answer is already overdetermined.
You are probably correct about the usage of “racism” under academia’s definition and under your own definition. So there are 4 different answers to the question, “is it racist to only date members of specific races?”:
Common usage: not racist
Merriam-Webster: not racist
The academia subculture: racist
Your custom definition: racist
Once again, having so many definitions is confusing!
It is implausible that “racism” is only a valid label to apply to things like employment choices, but not to sexual choices.
By the exact same logic, it is implausible that “sexism” is only a valid label to apply to things like employment choices, but not to sexual choices. Both homosexuals and heterosexuals are sexist, and only bisexuals and asexuals are free of sexism.
I have an addendum talking about what my mental model for that label is. You don’t like that you have to scroll down to read it? I don’t think that’s a big issue, sorry.
By my count, there are 5,941 words between when you use “racism” and when you explain your custom definition. This does make the piece less readable, in my opinion.
I don’t think you understood my objection (and based on the number of down-votes it looks like you are not alone). Trying again:
When people say “I’m not racist” they generally mean “I did nothing wrong”, because racism is widely accepted to be bad by definition. Take his opening paragraph:
The people claiming “it is not racist to only date members of specific races” usually mean “it is not morally wrong to only date members of specific races”. When he says, “but it is [racism, under my personal definition]”, he is not actually contradicting the claim these people are making. They have never heard of him or his personal definition.
Because racism is generally accepted to be bad by definition, people fight very hard to promote their preferred definitions. Whoever controls the definition, controls morality. The conflict is so heated that the Merriam-Webster Dictionary entry on the word has the following disclaimer:
Replacing vaguely defined words like “racism” with more precise words will help to promote clearer thinking in both yourself and readers.
In this case, not tabooing the word “racism” lead to
A claim using an undefined word, where you have to scroll all the way to Addendum 2 to find out what he means.
Confused thinking, where he contradicted a claim some people made based a definition those people weren’t using and have never heard of.
Saying that “I’m not racist” means “I did nothing wrong” is actually making up a definition. That is not a criterion used in talking about racism pretty much anywhere in academia. “Sexual racism” is an apt term as all the behaviors I can think to attach to that label squarely fall within the ordinary language definitions I see here, here, here, etc. It is implausible that “racism” is only a valid label to apply to things like employment choices, but not to sexual choices.
Now it may be the case that racial sexual preferences are a non-central instance of generic racism, hence the fallacy. My point in bringing up Is Sexual Racism Really Racism? Distinguishing Attitudes Toward Sexual Racism and Generic Racism Among Gay and Bisexual Men is to pose the argument and evidence that these things are actually much more centrally clustered to generic racism than you might have thought.
I don’t think we should be held hostage by the conversational standards of social media. In the common discourse “eugenics” is synonymous with evil. I am still going to use the term “eugenics”, and not going to shuffle around to try to find adjacent pointers. I do taboo “racism”—I have an addendum talking about what my mental model for that label is. You don’t like that you have to scroll down to read it? I don’t think that’s a big issue, sorry.
Generally, there are four ways to define a word:
Common usage (how most people use the word)
The Dictionary
A subculture can make up a custom definition
An individual can make up a custom definition
We have all four definitions in play at the same time:
Common usage (Racism is bad by definition, and “I’m not racist” means “I did nothing wrong”)
Merriam-Webster
A subculture consisting of parts of academia (Racism = Power + Prejudice)
Your custom definition (a big cluster of correlated tendencies in belief)
Having four different definitions for the same word is very confusing!
I disagree. The Merriam-Webster definition you cite is
Only dating members of specific races could be “racism” under 1b if it reflects a belief that “race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race”. But in that case, the person in question is already a racist, so the answer is already overdetermined.
You are probably correct about the usage of “racism” under academia’s definition and under your own definition. So there are 4 different answers to the question, “is it racist to only date members of specific races?”:
Common usage: not racist
Merriam-Webster: not racist
The academia subculture: racist
Your custom definition: racist
Once again, having so many definitions is confusing!
By the exact same logic, it is implausible that “sexism” is only a valid label to apply to things like employment choices, but not to sexual choices. Both homosexuals and heterosexuals are sexist, and only bisexuals and asexuals are free of sexism.
By my count, there are 5,941 words between when you use “racism” and when you explain your custom definition. This does make the piece less readable, in my opinion.