Racism: The Impossible Discussion ...

As many know/have witnessed, I am frequently engaged in running "battles" on the topic of Racism. While I have, yet, to call anyone, here on DU, a Racist; many, have understood me as having done so. I have repeatedly asked/challenged those making that claim to cite to a single instance of me having done so; but, each request has gone unfulfilled ... and rightfully so ... because I haven't.

In fact, I have (mostly) limited my participation in "race" threads to merely correcting the improper usage of antiquated/non-academically accepted definitions of the term ... And that seems to be a full-time job. This seems to be the accepted practice on DU ... for every topic, other than race. ETA: Imagine the DU response to someone opining that climate change is a hoax, or that vaccines cause autism, or that "trickle down" valid because "it is (they are) widely believed" or because a journalist said so, or because someone wrote it a decade ago?

Many here want to argue/believe that "racism goes both ways" and cite to "the common usage" of the term, or Webster's and/or pre-2000 writings on the topic. That would be fine, if the definition had/has remained unstudied and stagnant. It has not; rather, as with most phenomena, academic study results in refinement of our understanding of the observed ... It happened with the Earth's shape, with gravity, and Earth's position in the universe; and it's happening in such fields as climate study, economics and human behavior ... most of which, people (liberals) readily accept.

My "problem" with the current state of discussion, and the reason I entitled this OP as I have, is because without an accurate/common definition of the term racism, no discussion of racism can be had.

But I'm tired ... I'm tired of reading "Racism goes both ways" and when I post a correction, getting "well, that's not what the dictionary says" responses. Then, I post the 21st century definition, from peer-reviewed academic journals, with citations leading to the work describing the evolution of the definition, and I get ... "Well. I don't accept the definition! We will just have to agree to disagree." Then, in the very next thread on Racism, I get to repeat the process, as the very same people, repeat the same "racism goes both ways" arguments.

Tell me ... How is this any different having a climate change discussion with a fox-watching conservative?