"Reverse racism" doesn't exist, it's just called racism. Anyone can be racist.

The title says it all, really.

In practice, when you have to argue that your terminology is right "by the dictionary definition", it's often because we all understand that it would be misleading by any other more intuitive definition.

The dictionary exist to sort words out, not to give authoritive guidance on their subtleties. It will help you look up which is "receipt" and which is "recipe", or what is the greek-based word for "rule by a few", but it will hardly help you in reading the social context of which is the absolute most appropriate word to use.

This subreddit is full of posts where people try to argue that tehnically they are right to apply a certain word to an action. "Piracy is theft". "Abortion is murder". "Taxation is theft". "Affirmative Action is racist" "Avatar is an Anime". "Chess is a sport".

These arguments often boil down to picking a thing that is partially example of a larger label, but in some ways it is also an outlier example compared to the most iconic central examples that the label evokes. These arguments' goal is not to bringing up new, unknown information about their subject matters, but abusing the dictionary so a thing will be looked at differently if we categorize it together with a larger label. (No one is raising new scientific data of what an abortion involves, just that we should frown upon it because the dictionary applies the same word to it, as to a man shooting you in the face)

In the case of racism, we all understand, that the term "racism" was popularized as a description of nazi politics, and the way it ideologically motivated by a belief in racial hierarchies. Later it got applied to American white supremacist politicians, who rejected the term, taking it as an unfair accusation. So it entered the discourse as that, as an accusation of an intended oppressive political agenda.

Even if today, you can find dictionaries that for brevity's sake define racism just as "negative beliefs about a race", or somethig like that, it is undeniable that the term is dripping with a heavy accusation, that the one called "racist" is about to bring back the Bad Old Days.

Which makes it different from having negative beliefs about a hair color, or about a body height, or about a city of origin. Those are prejudices too, but on a different level from racism, without carrying the same ruinous threat of oppression.

In many ways, minorities having collectively negatively statements about white people, is more similar to those, than to white racism. Even if they were technically fit the dictionary definition of "racism", using that as an excuse to bang on the dictionary, and expect people to be as terrified of it as of politicians courting the alt-right, is manipulative semantic trick to portray two vastly different situations under the same blanket.

Densus Mont wrote:In practice, when you have to argue that your terminology is right "by the dictionary definition", it's often because we all understand that it would be misleading by any other more intuitive definition.

The dictionary exist to sort words out, not to give authoritive guidance on their subtleties. It will help you look up which is "receipt" and which is "recipe", or what is the greek-based word for "rule by a few", but it will hardly help you in reading the social context of which is the absolute most appropriate word to use.

This subreddit is full of posts where people try to argue that tehnically they are right to apply a certain word to an action. "Piracy is theft". "Abortion is murder". "Taxation is theft". "Affirmative Action is racist" "Avatar is an Anime". "Chess is a sport".

These arguments often boil down to picking a thing that is partially example of a larger label, but in some ways it is also an outlier example compared to the most iconic central examples that the label evokes. These arguments' goal is not to bringing up new, unknown information about their subject matters, but abusing the dictionary so a thing will be looked at differently if we categorize it together with a larger label. (No one is raising new scientific data of what an abortion involves, just that we should frown upon it because the dictionary applies the same word to it, as to a man shooting you in the face)

In the case of racism, we all understand, that the term "racism" was popularized as a description of nazi politics, and the way it ideologically motivated by a belief in racial hierarchies. Later it got applied to American white supremacist politicians, who rejected the term, taking it as an unfair accusation. So it entered the discourse as that, as an accusation of an intended oppressive political agenda.

Even if today, you can find dictionaries that for brevity's sake define racism just as "negative beliefs about a race", or somethig like that, it is undeniable that the term is dripping with a heavy accusation, that the one called "racist" is about to bring back the Bad Old Days.

Which makes it different from having negative beliefs about a hair color, or about a body height, or about a city of origin. Those are prejudices too, but on a different level from racism, without carrying the same ruinous threat of oppression.

In many ways, minorities having collectively negatively statements about white people, is more similar to those, than to white racism. Even if they were technically fit the dictionary definition of "racism", using that as an excuse to bang on the dictionary, and expect people to be as terrified of it as of politicians courting the alt-right, is manipulative semantic trick to portray two vastly different situations under the same blanket.

There's a few points I want to focus on here that you made.

Yes, dictionaries aren't supposed to " give authoritative guidance on their subtleties." However, it is a pretty simple definition, and there's no need for subtleties. I am sure we can understand the meaning of the word "hunger" from a dictionary without needing to have authoritative guidance.

The whole comparison to the "abortion is murder" phrase is entirely accurate in this situation. Changing the definition of racism may be useful, but it is not accurate. It's like how changing the definition of "abortion" to "murdering babies" is very useful to pro-lifer's but it is not even remotely accurate.

You said that using the dictionary definition is a "manipulative semantic trick" while the only manipulation of language I see is from those who are unofficially changing the definition of racism to exclude whites in order to benefit their agenda.