Jeremy Stangroom

If anybody tries to tell you that this is the definitive sociological definition of "racism" don't believe them. It's a nonsense. There is no central sociological authority policing the correct use of terminology. That's not how it works.https://twitter.com/DanielleMuscato/status/965414140046127104 …

Despite the use of the word 'definition' I'm not sure that is the best way to read this. It seems like a (probably true) conceptual claim about racism as a distinct social phenomenon (i.e. as distinct from racial prejudice etc.). It's not, or shouldn't be read as, about the word.

Don't agree. I think it's clearly a statement about word "racism", motivated by a desire to reserve the rhetorical force of the accusation "racist" for groups that are marginalized. It's a power grab in a political game.

Perhaps. It seems plausible though that something like the conceptual claim I had in mind might complement an attempt of the sort that you suggest. The conceptual thought might motivate the/a political move. The latter doesn't seem particularly insidious to me anyway.

But it isn't merely a conceptual claim, not least because there are plenty of alternative conceptions of racism. It's a rhetorical bludgeon that often leavers a wholly mistaken view of the discipline of sociology (where concepts are inevitably contested).

Controversial conceptual claims are still conceptual claims though, right? Perhaps I was wrong to put it in terms of concepts. It seems like a claim about the nature of a particular kind of moral wrong, which distinguishes that wrong from others.

Right, but they're not *merely* conceptual if they involve an attempt to police the proper use of language. It's a political move.