Ismism – four syllables, “izzum izzum” -- is the bad mental habit of criticizing a proposition not on its own terms, but in terms of the “ism” which one takes it to express.

For example, suppose Sheila is concerned that young people who marry are tying the knot later and later in life.  Brian snorts, “You’re one of those conjugalists.”  Then he criticizes Sheila for other beliefs which he himself associates with so-called conjugalism.  For instance, he protests “I don’t think everyone has to marry.”  But Sheila didn’t say that everyone has to marry.  She may not even think so, and it doesn’t follow as a conclusion from her premise.  Ismism is guilt by association:  “Your belief must be wrong, because I, personally, group it with other beliefs I consider wrong.”

The terminology of “isms” is sometimes convenient, and I sometimes use it myself.  For example, I might say that Marx criticized capitalism, by which I mean an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned, the owners compete in a free market, and they gain wealth by reinvesting a portion of their profits.  It would be cumbersome to repeat that definition over and over even though we have a single word as a placeholder.  This way of speaking isn’t ismism.  It’s just verbal shorthand.

But “ism” talk should be used sparingly.  I meet people who can spout all day about, say, femin-“ism,” conservat-“ism,” or fasc-“ism,” but who can’t give a clear answer if I ask them to tell me what they take feminist principles to be, in what ways conservative views are different from non-conservative views, or how their opponents’ beliefs make them fascists.