I don’t really understand your point. Portmanteaus and coining new words are useful in conveying complex concepts, though. If you wanted to have a conversation about parentification would you rather have one word to encompass that or have to say “the effect of having to be a care giver to your caregivers during your formative years” every time you need to reference that concept in the discussion.
What makes that a mutilation instead of more efficient?
The racism thing is confusing because racism encompasses both forms but there are specific descriptors for unique expressions of the same thing. Just like a square is a rectangle but a rectangle isn’t necessarily a square. That’s not really redefining, systemic racism has been racism the whole time, too. We’re just aware enough to have discussions about the specific ways it effects society today.
explodicle@local106.com 8 months ago
FYI both are valid definitions - if someone just says racism and seems to mean systemic racism, then they’re not wrong.
xor@infosec.pub 8 months ago
something like webster will try to cover all uses of a term… so if people use it a certain way, it becomes valid…
so really you’re just saying, “it’s not uncommon for people to use it that way, so it’s valid”
which is basically true for the English language.
HOWEVER that’s not what im talking about, i’m talking about people claiming that the other, more common definition of racism isn’t valid… and that the systemic racism definition is the only valid definition.
and they’re definitely wrong if they claim that.
btw, in the webster example, they still use qualifying terms… such as: institutional racism, structural racism, environmental racism… and then further clarifies it with: see also SYSTEMIC RACISM
so sure, someone can use the term racism as a shorthand for systemic racism… totally fine, the meaning is conveyed… etc…
but, no, they’re definitely wrong if they claim racism is only systemic racism…