I don't like that definition, it's basically a dystopian definition of dystopia. If you believe that you live in a good place and that others are bad, totalitarian states, you wouldn't consider yours to be dystopian, somewhat ignoring that people living in other states might think the exact same thing about your state.
Think of where these dystopias come from, what is the purpose of creating a dystopian rule. In these terms it's easy to make parallels with any modern state.
That's literally the dictionary definition of the term. If you don't like it, you should make up a new word, or explain convincingly why we should change it, and what to, which you aren't really doing.
> If you believe that you live in a good place and that others are bad, totalitarian states, you wouldn't consider yours to be dystopian, somewhat ignoring that people living in other states might think the exact same thing about your state.
My believing something is something doesn't make it so. Other people not believing something doesn't make so. That any society might look like a dystopia to someone doesn't make said society a dystopia, because "making parallels" isn't the same as proving something to be true. There are many parallels between humans and chimpanzees, but they're not the same species.
And you haven't answered my major question: If all modern states are dystopias under your definition, what exactly does a non-dystopian society look like, and how do we know? How is the term useful if you just define it as covering everything?
> My believing something is something doesn't make it so.
Your definition is exactly about beliefs. It can never be precisely interpreted, each interpretation depends entirely on what you consider good or bad and why.
"My" definition is the generally accepted definition, and that kind of relativism is convenient for you in that makes it impossible to have a discussion about it, but ignores the context in which the term has been used since its inception.
You're not responding to my questions or points, so I think this conversation's not productive anymore.
> but ignores the context in which the term has been used since its inception
Interestingly, I wanted to say the same to you. The term has been used to describe states that have the exact same goals as any modern state, but not a "bad" place.
The prefix 'dys-' literally comes from the PIE for 'bad, ill, evil'.
If you wanted to avoid subjective moral judgments in discussion, then I'd recommend you don't start it off by using the term 'dystopia', which implies subjective negative judgement [1].
Bear in mind that the term comes from "utopia," which was always an imaginary construct. The original idea was that dystopia would be an equally impossible/imaginary negative society counterpart to a utpoia's impossible/imaginary positive society.
It would probably be most correct to say that societies can be "dystopian" but never "dystopias," because of that part of the definition, but I think we're at a point where that's splitting hairs somewhat.
How is your assertion true under that definition, even if we strip out the "imagined" part?
Can you provide an example of a society which would qualify as not being a dystopia under your version of the term's meaning?