If you find that a word is so 'commonly misused' that leading dictionaries get it wrong, its possible ur definition is not commonly accepted
-
-
Give them racism and talk about racial prejudice instead? They want the ism coz it comes with an ist, much worse.
-
I accept the definition of the person I'm talking to. I'm objecting to them not doing so & shutting down convo with semantics.
-
I see what you mean but also shuts off debate when you both accept each others different definitions of what you're discussing.
-
For the purpose of the conversation! eg 'You're calling 'racism' what I'd call 'institutional racism' Lets discuss it now.
-
Then this form of racism can be discussed. If you want to have a convo specifically abt definitions of racism, obv can do this.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
If it's legally defined you can, harder just using the dictionary. Not easy to get past the different definitions if racism.
-
Not everyone you want to have discussions with will know legal definitions. I prefer to just let them define what they mean.
-
They will if you tell them. So they define it, as the power+ version, then what.....
-
Sorry?
-
Where do you go from there? They redefine things to subvert honest debate in the first place.
-
Wherever you were going. Whatever point you were making abt individual or systemic racism.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
