From theory, action.

a-petro-manifesto:

philosophy-of-praxis replied to your post: philosophy-of-praxis replied to your post: Wait,…

Because reality isn’t as simple as you try to force it to be.

Cool cop-out, bro.

Not really.  But you’re too much of a buffoon to realise that in a law regarding racism it will set a definition for the term which is for application within those legal parameters.  People in every day conversation will use the term racism in a more informal manner.  People who research or study anthropology/sociology will use the term in a fashion that describes the conditions which emerge as being a relevant functional use for the term.  At no point is the use of any of these guaranteed to be the same, in fact they will most likely differ greatly, least of all because you demand it to be.

Dictionaries make a hodge-podge deduction for how they define a term, from a collection of these.  Ultimately what goes into the dictionary depends on the agenda of the people editing it and the views on the matter they wish to promote.  When you get into a discussion on racism with “social justice warriors” or whatever the fuck you want to label people as, there’s a pretty good chance they’re not going to be using the legal definition (because white guys make the laws, so why the fuck would you trust them to not have an agenda which supports their position?) and they’ll be using a definition constructed through sociological/anthropological research that functions in a fashion which productively describes racism for the purpose of furthering a discourse which accurately portrays social power relationships.

But yeah, legal definitions are absolute because Petro is an asshat and demands it of the world.