> I see that the word "racism" has ceased to have meaning.

This is called "gaslighting". You have encountered a use of the term "racist" that you think is poor usage. Instead of confining your criticism to the specific usage of the term, you declare any and all uses of the term "meaningless".

It's intellectually lazy. Perhaps your definition of racist is "openly and aggressively advocating against one of three or four theorized racial groups". Perhaps you don't like my definition, "any and all behaviors which reinforce the systematic oppression of people based on race or other markers connected to race".

But rather than stand up for what you believe is a sensible use of the word, you wipe your hands the entire discussion. It's a childish tactic.

Personally, I think "racism" is a vital word, and it's vital that it retain a broad definition applicable to behaviors currently committed by well intentioned people (as it was 100 years ago). I believe the notion that "racism" traditionally refers to socially deplorable behavior is a false understanding of history and etymology. You seem to disagree, I would encourage you to argue your perspective.

> This is called "gaslighting"

Incorrect.

    "Gaslighting or gas-lighting is a form of psychological abuse in which a victim is manipulated into doubting his or her own memory, perception, and sanity."

I don't believe that I have attempted to manipulate anyone into doubting their memory, perception, or sanity.

> But rather than stand up for what you believe is a sensible use of the word, you wipe your hands the entire discussion. It's a childish tactic.

I stand by what I said -- If the usage above is valid, then I can infer nothing useful based on the term 'racism'.

To spell it out in full, recall the start of this thread, where someone was accused for racism because they named a policy that was in effect in 1914. _Note that the policy was not called racist. The only objection was the date.

So, based on that usage above, one meaning of racist seems to be the following conjunction:

   'Expressed approval for a policy' AND 'That policy was in place at a time when racism was a problem'

And given that racism has been a problem at any point in time, then the only conclusion that can be drawn is that someone had approved for some policy at some point in time.

If this is a valid meaning for racism, then someone being called racist gives me no information about the person. I don't believe this is a useful meaning.

Sorry, I thought you were saying that racism doesn't mean anything when anyone uses the term. I misunderstood.

If you don't think a good portion of the right wing in first world countries wouldn't gladly return to that state of affairs maybe you should take a look at the Trump campaign. Facism is alive and well my friend.

What, where most people have no air conditioning, no cars, no plumbing, no internet, no refrigeration? Where most jobs are back breaking subsistence farming, and almost all the rest are marginally better factory jobs?

If you think most humans would return to that, regardless of political affiliation, you're crazy.

No to a time where people are murdered simply because of their race. Politicians running for office with 30-40% of the popular vote are calling for nuking countries with no concern for collateral damage... what would you call that?

Your idea of 1914 involves a lot more nukes than mine does.

> Unfortunately, that doesn't leave me a good term for the people like the ones that murdered most of my grandmother's family because of their race.

This is what you said.

Nukes are just a convenient way to eliminate an entire race these days. If you don't think right wingers calling for the middle east to be nuked is in any way related we're probably done here.

Pity. I'm morbidly curious to see what other silly things you're willing to say.

It'd probably feel less silly if you were able to appreciate the context of posts.

You literally went from "I wish that passports and police interaction were at lower levels, like they used to be" to "I want to nuke the middle east!"

There is no context where that can be taken seriously.

You're the one who asked me what you should call the people that murdered your grandmother because of her race since I'm using the term "racist" too loosely for your taste.

I'm saying, call them racists just like the people today that would gladly return to a time where people get killed just because of their race, as evident by their espoused politics.

I might as well call them "people", in that case. The term racist has no real impact if it's used as loosely as you're using it.

Oh I disagree the word racist evokes a pretty emotional response regardless of how many times you use it. 2016 and all that. Just look at how much effort you're putting in to trying to prove what a "real racist" is?

You're right, I should accept that the meaning is diluted enough that good childhood memories makes me racist. It's 2016 and all.

No you should probably accept that racism is part of the human condition and acting like it doesn't exist is about as intellectually riveting as the latest Micheal Bay film.

Yes, we agree. It's 2016, and we should accept that 'racist' means approximately the same thing as 'person'.