No, but honestly, as an English major, there is nothing more hilarious than white/straight people who use the dictionary as their only defense.
You know what all my English professors have taught me? How useless the dictionary is, and how it could never reflect the intricacies of the relationship between language and culture.
The dictionary won’t save you. Sorry.
Ah, the classic “Oh, but the dictionary defines racism/sexism/{anything} as…”
Interesting from the perspective of a language major. Also, the “dictionary-definition” argument wouldn’t work for any subject if you study it at an advanced level.
You wouldn’t argue with a geneticist over the definition of a gene based on what is defined in the dictionary.
You wouldn’t argue with an astronomer over the definition of a black hole based on what is defined in a dictionary.
So why take a discussion on racism/sexism/oppression and boil it down to a dictionary definition of half a sentence?
In secondary school, at age 13, my answer to the question “What is a species?” was no more than a sentence, copied directly from the text book and corresponding to the dictionary definition.
At university, at age 21, my answer to the question “What is a species?” was a 2000-word essay which discussed different perspectives on the topic over the last hundred years.
When you bring in the dictionary definition to a discussion as a means of ending it, you are being nothing short of ignorant.
Dictionary-thumpers are just as bad as bible-thumpers. Read another goddamn book, nobody will take you seriously if you only have one source.
LOUDER FOR THEM IN THE BACK
Exactly. The dictionary does not define language. People define language. The dictionary was only ever intended to be a guide to how people are using words at the time.
Also, after a certain point, the dictionary changes to reflect the language so at any given point, a dictionary is always obsolete.
If a chef is a rookie and undercooks food, giving someone E. Coli, they’re fired and might deal with repercussions. If a valet driver is a rookie and gets into an accident, they’re immediately fired and have to report it to their insurance.
But we’re supposed to feel sympathy for a “rookie cop” like Peter Liang because his grievance resulted in the brutal death of another person? Even after he did nothing to salvage Akai Gurley’s life? Was that a rookie mistake too?
This is exactly why cops walk around with an unhinged god complex. We’re cementing this idea that they can actually, literally murder civilians and all is forgiven (or should be) because they weren’t experienced enough with deadly weapons.
