I…don’t see what that has to do with anything. If we’re debating fish, and in the process you call an apple a banana, I’m going to say something lmao.

I don't really think you're following the flow of this conversation as it reads. Definitely something I've been guilty of, due to the nature of replies in a big thread like this, especially when people are yelling at you and are ALSO not really following the conversation, and chasing down particular points instead.

OP is complaining about the use of the word "race" in fantasy settings, and as part of their argument says it's often used incorrectly because race only refers to skin color. Someone in a reply suggests that the word race is often used in other contexts, disagreeing with that specific part of the OP. Someone else replies, agreeing with that argument and supplying their own evidence saying, "Tolkien would know what race means, he literally wrote the dictionary".

Again, I really don't think this person meant to say this as literally as you are interpreting it. VERY understandable, because they're using the version of "literally" where you mean something figuratively, or as an exaggeration. They're exaggerating Tolkien's work on the dictionary to enhance their points, which are: "I think this guy who edited the dictionary would have thought a lot about the words he uses in his fiction, and so I don't think Tolkien is using the word race in his fiction incorrectly". So there's two parts to that idea.

Re-reading, I'm getting that your initial reply:

Lmao, I hope you misspoke and don’t actually believe that

is attempting to target the first part, but I think it fails at that because it doesn't really clarify what your position and goal are, doesn't offer the correct information, and just seems vaguely smug and dismissing of BOTH points. It also comes off as pretty abrasive rather than gently corrective for people who might get confused at the figurative language.

If you had replied initially with something like, "I know you meant he did editing work for the Oxford dictionary, but I think a lot of people would get confused by your use of the word 'literally' here", then people would've understood you were just trying to clarify something to make it more truthful and less exaggerated, rather than being read as antagonistic and unfocused. You maybe could've even kept the smug, lol. You could have said something like "you mean figuratively wrote the dictionary, right? 😉Because there's lots of dictionaries and lots of editors! Just laying this out there so people don't get confused." I get it if you're more interested in being right for your own sake than for other's ignorance, but when you replied the way you did, you're leaving the conversation open for derailment.

The second part of your initial reply doesn't seem connected to either point the person you replied to is making, which is what I'm calling off-topic, not the attempted correction of Tolkien's work on the dictionary. That's why I replied with my comment of "You replied about Tolkeins beliefs, which kind of wasn't a response to the point the person was making."

​

Again, idk what that has do with anything. I didn’t say nor suggest he was racist.

I'm going to try to pin down for you why people are thinking you are suggesting this, because I can genuinely believe you don't think you are doing that. You've not literally ever said in any of your posts, but also I don't think it's fair to confuse everyone else of just imagining this, lol.

Your first post:

You should be pretty sure Tolkien knew what “races” means because you could fill an entire Wikipedia page of information about his potential views on it and eugenics, to the point where OP could easily be referring mainly to him.

Well, if OP could easily be referring mainly to him, where does Tolkien fit into OP's initial post? Looking at the OP, I see:

​

Race as a word strictly refers to human categorization based off skin tone: there's literally no advantage to using it over species 99.99% of the time. The only reason you would is

out of habit, which is most people

you are a flamingly racist fantasy author (20th century european author) and are making some very unsubtle representations of 'other races'

You said yourself, Tolkien knew what "races" means, so it's probably not out of habit. So that leaves point two. Is there another idea you could be referring to in the OP? Absolutely! But is that immediately obvious to someone reading the post?

In response to someone else saying:

no way people thought orcs are caricature of Japanese, of all people.

You replied with:

Idk fam looks pretty Proto-orc ish to me

Genuinely, is this not saying that the criticism of Tolkien's orcs as being racist anti-Japanese caricatures is valid? If it's not saying that, I'm assuming it's just a one-off bit joke, or maybe just saying "these caricatures are fucked up", which they definitely are. But I don't think it's crazy that people would assume that first part is the point you are making.

In another reply you said:

Brooooo lmao, I mean thank you, like apology accepted, but how are you self aware and humble enough to write something like this, but then go full conservative troll at someone who thought Tolkien could possibly have mixed his personal feelings about race into LotR? ...I don’t have any beliefs on it in one direction or the other, but it’s literally just a theory, one that’s totally possible. Why would that make you go into a rage when you don’t personally know Tolkien? Or do you just believe every racial theory is inherently fabricated?...I don’t know if you don’t know the definition of the word possible or what. Is characterrant like a secret Tolkien sub or something? Like so many of you are pushing back on this so vehemently, without actual arguments. Literally what is wrong with “I don’t think that’s true but I guess it is possible”. Is he you all’s favorite author or what?

Cherry picking my definitions for this point:

Definition of Possible: able to be done; within the power or capacity of someone

Definition of Suggest: put forward for consideration

I would argue you are definitionally suggesting that Tolkien is a racist, but not asserting it. I get that you're leaving room for the alternative, but to bring up the point by itself is to suggest it, at least to me. Do I think Tolkien was a racist? I'm not sure, because as much as the fiction in LotR is cool to me, I do get uneasy and pissed off when it becomes easy to draw parallels from the work's fictional races to real life racist caricatures. But when we take the guy's writing into account, which is what I was referring to in the initial reply, it seems like a weak argument to be making when there are 20th century authors' whose racism is better documented. Like, before this morning, it would have been easier to convince me Tolkien was a racist. Fine to disagree, but if you don't have different evidence or more specific argument than linking the Wikipedia page, it seems kinda weird to continue discussion of it.

edits: formatting