An open letter to Redpill... (self.PurplePillDebate)

PurplePillDebate

24 ups - 13 downs = 11 votes

Hello Redpill...Redpill women, we haven't gotten along in the past...some of that was my fault, some of it yours...I'm not here to debate to judge..but rather to make a request

Feminism: the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.

according to google

now I see this word thrown around alot on Redpill particularly as a lebel thrown on anyone who isn't Redpill or who might disagree with Redpill ideology

while its true that most who Identify as Feminist wouldn't agree with redpill that doesn't mean that EVERYONE who might disagree with Redpill is a feminist

Bluepill for example does not identify itself as Feminist, while some of the users might Consider themselves the "F" word "Feminism" is not part of what Bluepill is...Bluepill is merely satire

I'm just saying its best not throw around such a specific term, because when you look at it a great deal of people/groups of people actually aren't Feminist

244 comments submitted at 11:35:20 on Nov 9, 2013 by Vault91

  • [-]
  • danabanana9
  • 17 Points
  • 14:03:10, 9 November

anyone who disagrees with me is a woman! (its a joke, son)

>Feminism: the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes

so neutral and benign!

i like this game, lets see if i can play

Racism: people differ on the basis of ethnic origin and should be allowed free association

Communism: it would be really, really nice of you to give your extra resources to the poor

Nazism: marching is cool, hey look at our neat uniforms!

but seriously, let me ask an open question to any feminists-- is it a true equality that is forced on the population at large at gunpoint? and this is not snark, it is serious. the goals of feminism are brutally enforced by the government at gunpoint, AKA "the law"

  • [-]
  • Spartacus321
  • 10 Points
  • 04:03:11, 11 November

All right dana, let's see if I can tackle this.

The definition of feminism you gave is the dictionary definition. It's the goal of feminism. It's purpose. If anyone is representing that word as something other than it's definition, then they're using the word incorrectly.

The definitions you gave to Racism and Nazism are just your exaggerated definitions made in an attempt to make a point. Unfortunately for your point, the two aren't comparable. The actual accepted definition of a word isn't comparable to your sarcastically-changed definition of another word. Clearly, you disagree:

>yes im saying the dictionary definition is ludicrous and patently political in nature. i reject it outrigh

>Dictionaries are books published by human, not inscribed tablets from God

Personally, I find this rather silly. Yes, dictionaries are made by humans, but they're made so that we can keep our language from having the meaning of words change so we can have meaningful conversations. (Imagine trying to discuss a topic like "medicine" if neither side had the same definition of the word. It'd be impossible.)

But putting that aside, I'll address it. The word "feminist" has that definition. There's no getting around that; it is what the word means. Now, what you and TRP actually complain about isn't the word itself, it's those that claim the word. You don't dislike feminism, you dislike feminists. The ideology itself is agreeable to just about anyone. It's those that claim the label and do other things that you don't like.

But here's the deal: despite what you think of those that follow the ideology, you don't get to rewrite its definition.

For example, the word "atheist" simply means that one doesn't believe in gods or God. "Atheist", however, conjures up a lot of mental images due to how it often is portrayed. Some atheists make insulting billboards, mess up Christmas decorations, and so on. But despite what you think of atheists because of this behavior, you don't get the option to change the meaning of the word "atheist" just because the definition in your head is a loaded one. No matter how atheists act or what they say and no matter how heinous some parts of atheist cultures may get, the word "atheist" will always just be a label that means "one that doesn't believe in gods". The same goes for feminism. Some may abuse the word by hiding behind it to push an agenda, and some may use it incorrectly, but that does NOT change the word's definition.

tl;dr: Stop blaming feminism for the actions of specific women and feminists. You don't get to change the meaning of the word just because you feel angry at people who use it.

  • [-]
  • danabanana9
  • 4 Points
  • 04:54:25, 11 November

>You don't dislike feminism, you dislike feminists.

no, i loathe feminism and its parent philosophy marxism, and egalitarianism and every single thing associated with collectivism and the left. i dont care about individual people at all like "feminists". i think the dictionary definition is a LIE

  • [-]
  • Spartacus321
  • 6 Points
  • 04:55:30, 11 November

So, let me get this straight: you're genuinely against equality between the sexes?

  • [-]
  • danabanana9
  • 5 Points
  • 05:33:14, 11 November

To be against it I would have to believe it exists. How equal would men and women be if the government removed the gun from everyone's head tomorrow and stopped forcing women into every sphere of endeavor? I don't believe in equality in any sense other than that contemplated by the framers of the constitution, the barest equality of procedural justice under the law

  • [-]
  • Spartacus321
  • 4 Points
  • 05:40:50, 11 November

Well that would explain a great deal.

  • [-]
  • redpillhead
  • 1 Points
  • 06:31:13, 13 November

Men and women are not equal. We both serve equally important roles but we are not equal. We should both have equal protection under the law but we are not equal.

  • [-]
  • soulcakeduck
  • 13 Points
  • 14:24:31, 9 November

> is it a true equality that is forced on the population at large at gunpoint?

Feminism includes social equality. Equality enforced through law precludes social equality--if we had social equality it would not need such legal enforcement. Feminists may prefer legal enforcement over anarchy but that is never anyone's goal.

  • [-]
  • danabanana9
  • 12 Points
  • 14:25:13, 9 November

what is social equality? (genuine q)

  • [-]
  • soulcakeduck
  • 9 Points
  • 14:28:37, 9 November

Where legal equality requires that laws treat people equally, social equality requires that society (choose to) treat people equally.

So for example, schools choosing racial segregation (if legally permissible) is social inequality. Schools choosing integration (without a legal mandate forcing them to) would be social equality.

  • [-]
  • redwhiskeredbubul
  • 3 Points
  • 18:34:13, 9 November

This is an invidious comparison, because the problem with Nazism and Communism was not that they enforced policies through laws. Actually, rule of law was very weak in Germany under the Nazis (the Constitution was basically ignored apart from the emergency decree) and in the Soviet Union under Stalin (very few of the protections in the 1936 Constitution were put into practice, there was extensive use of secret trials, etc.).

Partially for this reason, law is used as the basis of social policy in almost every country in the world, so to say this is 'forced on the population at gunpoint' requires either a very radical argument (e.g. anarchism) or an ignorance of what Constitutional democracy is.

  • [-]
  • danabanana9
  • 1 Points
  • 19:42:30, 9 November

It wasn't a comparison of the content of the belief systems no matter how much you all try to make it. If you can't see the base similarity of "-ism it would be funny to describe in very neutral terms" then that's on all of you, not me

  • [-]
  • redwhiskeredbubul
  • 5 Points
  • 19:55:27, 9 November

I can't figure out what your second sentence means.

Anyway, no, it's not a comparison of belief systems, it's a comparison of movements and ideologies. And as such it's fairly appropriate as a comparison. You're just drawing a specious analogy.

  • [-]
  • danabanana9
  • 3 Points
  • 20:34:01, 9 November

No, it wasn't that either. And you aren't going to mischaracterize my statement without challenge even if you stand on your head a nd spit golden quarters. again, it was a list of -isms defined in a humorously neutral way. The feminism is an -ism. That is the SOLE LEVEL OF COMPARISON. In a later response I Did the same with one of my OWN isms. there is no specious comparison because THERE IS NO COMPARISON. You aren't going time get the last word with a mischaracterization I will respond over and over and if I die I will direct someone else to continue in my stead.in my will. You are being deliberately obtuse

  • [-]
  • redwhiskeredbubul
  • 4 Points
  • 20:37:25, 9 November

Okay, can you explain to me what your point in fact was?

  • [-]
  • danabanana9
  • 4 Points
  • 21:31:20, 9 November

my point was, again, to make fun of the VERY neutral characterization of a very contentious and disputed -ism. the definition in the dictionary (as im sure it should be) was terse and struck me as funny in how much controversy was packed into the word that could be left out of the definition. now im no fan of feminism at all, but i certainly dont put it on par with nazism, nor did i intend to compare them on the basis of CONTENT

i pulled nazism communism and racism out of my ass because they were the first 3 that came to mind and, i cant stress this enough, MY FAKE DEFINITIONS WERE FUNNY (if you never understood the joke "how many feminists does it take to change a lightbulb?" "THATS NOT FUNNY", you should now). when another user castigated me i volunteered a similar neutral definition of the -ISM I BELIEVE IN, as i am an informal objectivist--if you scroll up i wrote: objectivism--go ahead, its a free country, pull yourself up by your own bootstraps!

now if i had very strong negative feelings towards objectivism and looked it up in the dictionary and it said : an individualist philosophy in which people are encouraged to be self reliant (example), i, as someone with very strong opinions about objectivism would probably find it funny and hilariously neutral, because i would KNOW just how much controversy there was surrounded this innocuous sounding -ism

i hope this made sense

i hope you understand that feminism is not a sacred cow to its opponents, but the butt of many of our jokes

  • [-]
  • redwhiskeredbubul
  • 4 Points
  • 21:38:49, 9 November

Sure. I think you're having trouble with the rhetorical uses of humor, though. The trouble with making feminism the butt of a joke is that other people take feminism seriously. The fact that you do so doesn't automatically mean you really do think feminism is nothing but a joke, but for some people the humor is difficult to get. When you back off and state that you mean nothing by your characterization of feminism, it lends itself to the impression that you intend to make a serious point and immediately back off of having said it without actually conceding anything, which is generally regarded as a display of malice or cowardice. It's the rhetorical equivalent of punching somebody and running away.

  • [-]
  • danabanana9
  • 5 Points
  • 21:52:25, 9 November

ok there is no way to communicate with you you are unable to understand what im saying

i didnt EVER say feminism was "nothing but a joke", i said it WASNT A SACRED cow and was the BUTT OF JOKES

feminism is something to be taken deadly seriously, i havent OPPOSED IT VOCIFEROUSLY for 25 years because it isnt to be taken seriously. i didnt say i MEANT NOTHING BY MY CHARACTERIZATION, i SAID that i wasnt saying it was like nazism, racism, or communism in any other way than being an ism to be caricatured with a joke definition in that instance. it wasnt a DOCTORAL DISSERTATION on my entire stance on feminism, it was a single joke, and i should add, one that was really for the amusement of the people on my side. obviously i MEANT SOMETHING, i MEANT that feminism is a HELL OF A LOT MORE than that silly neutral dictionary definition implied. i cannot for the life of my understand why its not obvious

im not backing off from anything, i went ON in the statement to say that feminism accomplishes equality by holding a gun to society's head, THAT no one noticed because i mentioned the magic trigger words racism and nazism

i didnt PROFFER THE STATEMENT to get into an argument over all of feminism but to 1. make my joke about the neutral definition and 2. make my NEXT POINT EVERYONE IGNORED

i am familiar with the feminist propensity to see trigger words in the same sentence and then to go off half cocked though, so i shouldnt have been surprised

  • [-]
  • redwhiskeredbubul
  • 8 Points
  • 21:57:10, 9 November

Please calm down. This is a debate sub. I am talking to you about rules and norms for debate. I am not saying you punched anybody. It is a metaphor, like 'holding a gun to society's head.'

  • [-]
  • whatsazipper
  • 4 Points
  • 19:19:09, 9 November

>Feminism: the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes

I'm sure those at /r/mensrights would disagree heavily.

  • [-]
  • Vault91
  • 4 Points
  • 14:27:57, 9 November

I'm not talking about what feminism IS I'm saying "can we stop using the label wrong"

  • [-]
  • whatsazipper
  • 2 Points
  • 19:44:20, 9 November

It's not the wrong label. It does not overtly identify as feminist but the dominant stream of thoughts through it is feminist

Saying TBP isn't feminist, and saying that it's satire, should not be taken at face value. It isn't feminist, ok, it just is mostly comprised of feminists and feminist thought.

It's satire. Ok. so it's mostly devoid of irony, but it does score well on ridicule and sarcasm. Satire is not mutually exclusive with feminism.

  • [-]
  • I_LOVE_CAPTION_BOT
  • 6 Points
  • 16:52:37, 9 November

So you're saying the online dictionary consensus is wrong?

Comparing it to racism, communism and Nazism is just you trying to reframe it in a negative light and is an incredibly dishonest tactic.

  • [-]
  • danabanana9
  • 10 Points
  • 16:54:54, 9 November

yes im saying the dictionary definition is ludicrous and patently political in nature. i reject it outrigh

and, im not COMPARING IT TO THOSE THINGS in CONTENT. i used three other controversial -isms to show how you could define anything in a neutral pleasing light that woul dmake it seem silly for people to say "im not a ________"

  • [-]
  • I_LOVE_CAPTION_BOT
  • 3 Points
  • 17:01:49, 9 November

>yes im saying the dictionary definition is ludicrous and patently political in nature. i reject it outrigh

If you refuse to accept a reasonable, widely-sourced definition of something then you shouldn't debate it.

>and, im not COMPARING IT TO THOSE THINGS in CONTENT. i used three other controversial -isms to show how you could define anything in a neutral pleasing light that woul dmake it seem silly for people to say "im not a ________"

I'm finding it hard to take your word for it because what, pray tell, is the implication of what you've said? The implication is that feminism is extreme and controversial like racism, Nazism and communism. Because the dictionary says it's not.

If this is not the case for you, then you should be revising your comments for context and implication.

  • [-]
  • danabanana9
  • 7 Points
  • 17:21:03, 9 November

Yes it is as "extreme" and controversial as those things because unlike a leftist, I don't think "extreme" just means extremely not-leftist. Dictionaries are books published by human, not inscribed tablets from God

The comments does not violate the rules and expresses exactly what I wanted to say and until a mod has something to say about will stay exactly as it is.

  • [-]
  • I_LOVE_CAPTION_BOT
  • 0 Points
  • 17:32:05, 9 November

>Yes it is as "extreme" and controversial as those things because unlike a leftist, I don't think "extreme" just means extremely not-leftist.

So you were comparing it to those things after all? Thanks for clarifying, but next time just be honest with me. I can take it.

Perhaps I ought to request more leverage here but on the whole I would say that being able to vote is not extreme.

Communism is leftist and plenty of leftists will say it's extreme.

>Dictionaries are books published by human, not inscribed tablets from God

Yes, humans who do extensive research and knowledge. We have reasonable grounds on which to accept their definitions.

>The comments does not violate the rules and expresses exactly what I wanted to say and until a mod has something to say about will stay exactly as it is.

It doesn't violate the rules but that does not make it philosophically sound. Sorry.

  • [-]
  • danabanana9
  • 6 Points
  • 18:02:08, 9 November

No I wasn't comparing it. When you asked me my OPINION of whether it was as "extreme" I answered Yes

Here, I'll do it to something I AGREE WITH:

objectivism-- go ahead, it's a free country, pullyourself up by your own bootstraps!!!

  • [-]
  • I_LOVE_CAPTION_BOT
  • 0 Points
  • 18:08:49, 9 November

An opinion does not exert much over what the movement actually is. Sorry.

  • [-]
  • whatsazipper
  • 8 Points
  • 20:35:00, 9 November

The actions of the movement as carried out by its directors, members, and those who aid the movement, do. People observe those and form an opinion.

If these betray the stated intent of the movement, then the stated intent is irrelevant.

Pay attention to what people do, not what they say.

  • [-]
  • I_LOVE_CAPTION_BOT
  • 2 Points
  • 20:45:51, 9 November

The Suffragists got votes for women by working in munitions factories and proving they could in fact do dangerous work and make a worthwhile contribution to the war despite being barred socially and legally from the frontline.

I think this is an example of advocating women's rights, because those women were feminists and they wanted the right to vote so they worked in munitions to achieve them.

  • [-]
  • danabanana9
  • 5 Points
  • 18:10:44, 9 November

I don't care what the movement claims it is. I care about my analysis of what I think it is. Feel free to ignore me

  • [-]
  • redwhiskeredbubul
  • 0 Points
  • 18:45:13, 9 November

The dictionary is politically biased? You can't have it both ways. Either the dictionary is a relatively neutral source or all definitions are hopelessly biased.

  • [-]
  • alphabetmod
  • 8 Points
  • 20:13:44, 9 November

Everytime I've ever tried to use the dictionary to define oppression or privilege when having a discussion with a feminist over whether men can be oppressed as a group or women can be privileged as a group I get told that the dictionary definition is not the one commonly accepted by feminists or feminist theory. So which is it, you can't have it both ways.

  • [-]
  • redwhiskeredbubul
  • 1 Points
  • 20:22:13, 9 November

It depends on the context and the appropriateness of the definition. Saying that feminists or especially feminist scholars do not define feminism in the same way is not the same thing as simply rejecting the dictionary definition because it is an appeal to an alternate source of authority, not the sheer rejection of the one source of authority which has been mentioned.

If you have an alternate source of authority by which to define feminism, go ahead and do so.

  • [-]
  • alphabetmod
  • 6 Points
  • 20:54:32, 9 November

Now you're moving the goalposts. Before it was either the dictionary is neutral or it's all biased, now it depends on the context and appropriateness of the definition.

You're also splitting hairs. Dana does not define feminism in the same way as the dictionary definition, but she can't do that because her reasons for doing so areā€¦ not reasons you agree with?

  • [-]
  • redwhiskeredbubul
  • 1 Points
  • 21:03:33, 9 November

No, you're missing the importance of the qualifications in the statement. The dictionary is still a relatively neutral source compared to the definition of the feminist scholar, all else being equal, but the definition of the feminist scholar is still legitimate. This can vary by context: for example, if we are discussing Judith Butler's definition of feminism it is more appropriate to cite her definition because it is more pertinent. If people are saying that there is a difference in the definition of things like oppression and priviledge, it's because they want to draw your attention to the fact that there are multiple definitions of these terms. They are not necessarily saying your definition is wrong.

And again, the problem with Dana's argument from what I can determine is that she is not defining feminism at all, apart from 'this thing I disagree with.'

  • [-]
  • alphabetmod
  • 6 Points
  • 21:17:25, 9 November

> And again, the problem with Dana's argument from what I can determine is that she is not defining feminism at all, apart from 'this thing I disagree with.'

Why is this a problem? She's stated her stance as not agreeing with the dictionary definition. Because she hasn't clarified her own definition does not disqualify her objection.

I'm not missing the importance of the qualifications, I left them out and it didn't change the meaning. The rest of your argument is agreeable to mine. We're in agreement that someones definition of feminism is not necessarily wrong because it doesn't align with the dictionary definition.

  • [-]
  • redwhiskeredbubul
  • 3 Points
  • 21:22:45, 9 November

It is impossible to argue about something without at least the possibility of a shared definition. If I am talking about chairs, and what you think the referent of the word 'chair' is, is what I think is described by the word 'rock,' we are going to have difficulty agreeing on the properties of chairs. And refusing to give a definition of a term after being asked to do so is what's commonly called 'arguing in bad faith.'

  • [-]
  • mrsamsa
  • 0 Points
  • 21:34:35, 9 November

The dictionary defines common usage, which can be useful for everyday conversations. But when a discussion starts looking at scientific issues, then the scientific definitions are the ones that need to be used.

A good comprehensive and complete dictionary will include these definitions, but obviously such a dictionary would be massive and most people don't have access to those kinds of references.

If someone wants to argue that the definition of feminism in the dictionary is wrong or inaccurate, then they simply need to find an alternative reputable source for a different definition.

  • [-]
  • alphabetmod
  • 2 Points
  • 23:15:49, 9 November

I was more commenting on the fact that IMO feminists like to point to the dictionary definition when it suits them.

  • [-]
  • mrsamsa
  • 1 Points
  • 04:31:16, 10 November

I guess I can't speak for the intentions of people I don't know, but I would argue that the best way to judge intentions is to look at the objective evidence we have available. In this case, are feminists adopting the dictionary definitions in spite of contradicting reputable sources, or are all reputable definitions consistent and so the dictionary definition is simply the most convenient?

If the former, then it should be easy to point out a reputable source that contradicts them and shows them to be misusing the dictionary to support their belief system.

  • [-]
  • whatsazipper
  • 6 Points
  • 19:27:25, 9 November

>Either the dictionary is a relatively neutral source or all definitions are hopelessly biased.

That is a false dichotomy. A dictionary can be a relatively neutral source for words we use as language, not for describing political movements, where there may be disagreement and controversy.

  • [-]
  • redwhiskeredbubul
  • 2 Points
  • 19:34:58, 9 November

Words for describing political movements are words we use as language: there is no word we do not use as language. And the point of a dictionary is to present as close as possible to a consensus definition of that word. That is what the dictionary is for.

EDIT: If you can provide an alternate source of neutrality, be my guest, but otherwise this is special pleading.

  • [-]
  • whatsazipper
  • 3 Points
  • 19:38:17, 9 November

The point is, it's not consensus. There are plenty who would disagree, and political movements easily come with these problems.

  • [-]
  • redwhiskeredbubul
  • 2 Points
  • 19:45:02, 9 November

And they could be wrong. Words don't mean whatever you want them to mean. If you want to provide an argument about why the dictionary definition is wrong, that's one thing, but you aren't entitled to reject its definition without justification.

This is what I mean by having it both ways: you're imposing a totally relativistic standard on truth in politics while claiming bias is possible. It's a classic conservative rhetorical trick and it drives me up the wall.

  • [-]
  • whatsazipper
  • 2 Points
  • 19:46:41, 9 November

> but you aren't entitled to reject its definition without justification.

Inconsistent with reality.

If you want more people who disagree I'm sure you could talk to /r/mensrights

  • [-]
  • redwhiskeredbubul
  • 3 Points
  • 19:50:49, 9 November

You see, this is what I mean. Yes, it is factually possible to argue from an inconsistent or incoherent position, but the impossibility of refuting such an argument isn't proof of its validity.

EG: askdhjhdajkjdshdajsh, therefore you are wrong.

  • [-]
  • whatsazipper
  • 1 Points
  • 23:27:21, 9 November

>Words don't mean whatever you want them to mean

In the case of politics, words aren't worth a damn if your actions betray them. A definition doesn't get to be the definition if it's incongruent with the movement as practiced.

Feminists and TBP folks want to eat their cake and have it too when it comes to words, it seems. For all this nonsense about dictionaries for political definitions, the same type tries to crazily expand the definition of misogyny and rape to people who don't hate women and people who don't rape.

  • [-]
  • redwhiskeredbubul
  • 4 Points
  • 23:34:46, 9 November

I already addressed this elsewhere here. Dictionaries are not the only arbiter of meaning, and it's impossible to address complaints like this without an example of what you mean.

  • [-]
  • whatsazipper
  • 3 Points
  • 19:14:50, 9 November

Consulting dictionaries for political movements doesn't strike me as appropriate. They are too big to fairly express in a dictionary, and obviously politically loaded.

  • [-]
  • I_LOVE_CAPTION_BOT
  • 4 Points
  • 19:30:52, 9 November

A dictionary definition is intended to be balanced, simplified and succinct.

  • [-]
  • whatsazipper
  • 3 Points
  • 19:34:57, 9 November

Either the intention has failed or its context is historical and refers past instances of feminism. Now feminism isn't relevant except in justifying its own existence. Perhaps we can tweak it and submit a rewrite:

>Feminism: The advocacy of women's rights, without any corresponding responsibility or accountability, at the expense of men.

  • [-]
  • I_LOVE_CAPTION_BOT
  • 4 Points
  • 19:35:45, 9 November

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

  • [-]
  • whatsazipper
  • 2 Points
  • 19:37:52, 9 November

The point is, it's not consensus. There are plenty who would disagree, and political movements easily come with these problems.

  • [-]
  • I_LOVE_CAPTION_BOT
  • 3 Points
  • 19:45:01, 9 November

If we asked everyone to agree on a definition for a social movement they may or may not agree with, do you think we would get very far?

I agree the movement is broad. We have Marxist feminists, conservative feminists, third wave feminists, TERFs, analytical feminists, structuralist feminists, functionalist feminists, etc., but would you agree they all come down to the baseline of "women's rights"?

If you do not accept a dictionary definition of something, then I am uncertain of any source for a definition one would accept.

  • [-]
  • whatsazipper
  • 3 Points
  • 19:48:06, 9 November

Why would I accept a dictionary definition for politics or a political movement?

They will have a stated intent(s) and goal(s).

They will also have actions.

There is no dictionary definition required. The name is an identifier to associate with the group.

  • [-]
  • I_LOVE_CAPTION_BOT
  • 1 Points
  • 19:55:44, 9 November

>The name is an identifier to associate with the group.

No, it's to associate with a movement that's about women's rights. It's a broadly spread movement as you said, so "group" doesn't really sit well. You think a Marxist feminist would wanted to be associated with a Conservative feminist, or vice versa? Would a transfeminist want to be grouped with a separatist feminist or a TERF, or vice versa? Hell no. But if we all found something to agree on, it would be "women's rights", so that's the baseline of what we define as feminism.

A concept comes about like so - we have the definition, then we have the word. A word is meaningless without its definition.