Okay, so let's get this out of the way first:

People who are materially affected by discrimination have more at stake when it comes to how we view and talk about discrimination then people who aren't.

I'm an able-bodied straight white cis guy. If we were to study the intersectional matrix of marginalization and disadvantagementarianism (totally a word!) with an electron microscope, we would probably find some areas where I lack what the youngsters call privilege, but overall I am pretty well set in life.

So I want to be very clear that I am in no way denying the experiences or perspectives of people who have faced challenges that I haven't. What we're talking about today only concerns how we communicate these experiences/perspectives/challanges, particularly to those with whom we don't share a common basis of understanding.

Whoof, that's a lot of disclaimers!!! Can I ablestraightwhitecismansplain now or what?!?

[SPOILERS: I can.]

Dear Progressive Friends (and Progressive Enemies?!?),

Stop tellling people that they're using the word "racism" wrong because "Racism = Prejudice + Power" (or whatever your preferred formulation of that sentiment is). You are well-intentioned, and you are attempting to express something important, but by rejecting a commonly understood definition, you are CREATING an argument about the meaning of words and distracting from the fundamental conversation about racism and the abuse of power.

Your Friend,
Some White Dude

Many words in the English language have many definitions, and all of those definitions were written to reflect usage. If somebody's using a word in a way you don't like, and you tell them, "Actually, the word means THIS!" odds are you're both right.

Getting into an argument over which definitions are better or worse is worse than pointless. It's a distraction from whatever discussion you were previously trying to have. And when you're having a conversation about racism and you get sidetracked into an argument over definitions -- regardless of the intentions of the participants in that argument -- RACISM WINS.

So here's my handy guide to communicating despite competing definitions:

1) Once it's clear that you're using different definitions, define your terms

2) If possible, define contentious terms upfront, before the conversation begins

3) Don't tell the other person that their definition is wrong

4) Reframe your usage to highlight the point of disagreement

5) Don't get hung up if you or the other person fall back on default definitions

6) Never lose sight of the actual conversation you're trying to have

So if you're a progressive, and you want to talk to a conservative about ways that racism is endemic in society, great! Start by being upfront about how you define racism. Don't push that definition on them. Say things like "this type of racism" or "institutionalized racism" and keep the focus on the specific inequities that really matter.

"But Drew!" you might say. "This sounds an awful lot like conceding the point and accepting their definition!"

To which I say, "WHO CARES!?!"

If somebody doesn't like your definition of racism but concedes that, say, black people have a harder time getting a home mortgage even after adjusting for income, WHY DOES IT MATTER IF THEY CALL THAT "HOUSING-BASED RACISM"???

CORRECT ANSWER: It does not! Heck, if that happens, you should have a flippin' parade!

(And I'm not using flippin' as a euphemism here. I'm suggesting that your parade feature prominent gymnasts. Thank me later!)

Without question, the hardest thing is getting someone who disagrees with you to accept the validity of evidence that supports your point of view. It's so hard that scoring a few rhetorical points debating definitions might feel like a better, easier, more satisfying use of your time.

But if you're just looking for comfort or reassurance, unplug and find someone who will give you a hug. Hugs are great! Even better than gymnasts!

Hopefully something we can all agree on.