Calling Some One a Racist or Bigot

[ScottSA]

I did , and read it again. I assume you think I missed something. Please show me. Is it the 2nd gen stuff?

Did you miss the "visible" bit? It's actually the core of my post, so it's odd that you'd miss it twice running...

[M.Dancer]

It's pretty clear with this link re the last definition.

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=racist

I realize some folks here would like to use any reference that they agree with, and exclude all others.

To be honest, the first time I clicked this link the other day, the religion bit wasn't there, so I fiddled to see if I could bring it up, an lo, there it is today.

[Argus]

I just followed the link and pressed control-c. Now I shall press control-v: racist, antiblack, anti-Semite (discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion)

I'm sorry. I guess I didn't realize how many people were confused by how dictionaries work. Well, not everyone can have had an education, I suppose.

Okay, the part that is the definition of a word is the part that actually follows the word.

racist: (racialist) a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others

Now when you get beyond that and it says things like "S adjective antiblack, anti-semite" it means "similar to or related to the adjective antiblack, Anti-Semite" - discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion

Do you understand these are different, though related terms included only as a reference? Or is that beyond you?

Now you could term his post title "antimuslim" if there were such an adjective - and since we have antiblack and anti-semitic I suppose you could create one if it didn't exist. But that is not the same as being racist.

[Guest coot]

I won't be so condescending when I explain to you that, no, you're wrong. They are all definitions of the word. One segment defines it as a noun, as in "You are a racist." The other defines it as an adjective, as in "You are a racist twat."

Nice back-pedal from accusing jazzer of changing the original definition though. If you had understood how dictionaries actually work, you might have not had a problem.

Edited October 17, 2007 by coot

[jazzer]

You fail Argus to take into account ALL definitions once again. For the final time:

Racism is a belief system or doctrine which postulates a hierarchy among various human races or ethnic groups. It may be based on an assumption of inherent biological differences between different ethnic groups that purport to determine cultural or individual behaviour. ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racist

discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion [/b](from http://dict.die.net/racist/)

and http://www.thefreedictionary.com/racist

discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion (from wordnet.com)

As far as your insult, I am an English major so I know only too well how to use a dictionary. My point is that racism can be applied to other uses in addition to discrimination based on race. But go ahead and argue/agree with the dictionary of your choice.

Edited October 17, 2007 by jazzer

[Guest coot]

racist: (racialist) a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others[/b]

Now when you get beyond that and it says things like "S adjective antiblack, anti-semite" it means "similar to or related to the adjective antiblack, Anti-Semite" - discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion

But speaking of deliberately altering what the dictionary cited to suit your ends, why did you delete the S before the definition of the noun for the first definition? (All the definitions are preceded by a hyperlink "S" that links to the Synset.) Was it to prop up your mistaken (or deliberately misleading) proposal that the definition of the adjective was a list of "similar" words?

[Argus]

You fail Argus to take into account ALL definitions once again. For the final time:

Racism is a belief system or doctrine which postulates a hierarchy among various human races or ethnic groups. It may be based on an assumption of inherent biological differences between different ethnic groups that purport to determine cultural or individual behaviour. ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racist

Why do you even mention that when it has nothing whatsoever to do with religions?

discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion [/b](from http://dict.die.net/racist/)

And again you're failing to take into account that this is only thrown in with relation to anti-semitism.

and http://www.thefreedictionary.com/racist

discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion (from wordnet.com)

As far as your insult, I am an English major so I know only too well how to use a dictionary. My point is that racism can be applied to other uses in addition to discrimination based on race. But go ahead and argue/agree with the dictionary of your choice.

It looks to me like all three of your quotes are the same quote. Die.net? Who the hell is die.net? The Farlex free dictionary? How many dictionaries did you have to wade through before you found something you could stretch to encompass your bizarre definition of religion as race? Dictionary.com is the staple of on-line dictionaries, and it says nothing about religion in its long and detailed definition of racism. The Cambridge and Oxford dictionaries do not mention religion either. Nor does Encarta, Merriam-Webster or Britannica. Twist it as you might, religion has nothing to do with racism.

English majors have a lot to do with unemployment, however.

[Guest coot]

Twist it as you might, religion has nothing to do with racism.

English majors have a lot to do with unemployment, however.

The only person I've found doing any twisting is you by your attempts to change established dictionary format to make it seem like definitions aren't really definitions. Princeton's wordnet is a way better source than the American Heritage dictionary at dictionary.com.

But the ad-hom attack at the end made your case for you nicely. Heh. Stupid English majors know how dictionaries work.

[ScottSA]

Let's change the word 'feminist' so it refers to the empowerment of cats! And what about "ageist?" Why shouldn't it refer to one legged folks too; after all, some of them are old and others are young!

[Guest coot]

Let's change the word 'feminist' so it refers to the empowerment of cats! And what about "ageist?" Why shouldn't it refer to one legged folks too; after all, some of them are old and others are young!

You don't read dictionaries at all, do you?

[ScottSA]

You don't read dictionaries at all, do you?

Actually, I try not to. Do you find them exciting? I just thought that as long as we're going to engage in definition expansion, we might as well expand the bejesus out of every ism in sight.

[Guest coot]

Not that it makes any real difference between whether someone is racist or bigoted, but the only definition expansion was Argus' bizarre attempt to make it seem like adjective definitions were references to other words entirely.

But it may be an effective strategy to try to discredit all dictionaries as boring and people who use dictionaries as likely being unemployed. These debating tactics often seem to work among the conservative base.

[ScottSA]

These debating tactics often seem to work among the conservative base.

The "conservative base" doesn't debate itself, it debates the left, and just about anything works against the left, because emotion holds by far the higher place in the leftist pantheon than in the "conservative base," which tends to hold rationality in higher esteem. That's why the left assumes without thinking that "racism" means whatever one feels they should mean, while the right points out that the term is a derivative of "race," and much therefore refer to things racial. Another hallmark of the left is that it assumes that all bigotry is wrong, thereby switching bigotries from discriminatory to anti-discriminatory. If, for example, it comes to light on the left that all Scotsmen don't shag sheep, the left siezes the assumption that no Scotsman ever shags sheep, and announces that anyone who claims Scotsmen shag sheep is a "bigot." Or, apparently in light of this thread, a "racist."

[Guest trex]

Wow, Kewl! You mean we can say stuff about the Jews here too?? Awesome, I love sites like this, wide open where you can say anything you want... I got some great research stuff on zundels theories, you folks would never believe it!

[Canadian Blue]

If, for example, it comes to light on the left that all Scotsmen don't shag sheep, the left siezes the assumption that no Scotsman ever shags sheep, and announces that anyone who claims Scotsmen shag sheep is a "bigot." Or, apparently in light of this thread, a "racist."

No it's the other way around. One Scotsman shags a sheep, thus the right calls for mass deportations and segregation between Scotsman and non-Scotsman. Then the liberals rightfully point out the non-Scotsman have also been shagging sheep, and that each person should be judged as an individual. Then the right claims that the Scotsman shags sheep due to genetics, culture, etc.

[M.Dancer]

No it's the other way around. One Scotsman shags a sheep, thus the right calls for mass deportations and segregation between Scotsman and non-Scotsman. Then the liberals rightfully point out the non-Scotsman have also been shagging sheep, and that each person should be judged as an individual. Then the right claims that the Scotsman shags sheep due to genetics, culture, etc.

either way, you get to blame the English, who convinced the Scottish land owners to kick out the crofters and the kine they raised and enclose the land for sheep......

On the heath with kine you had your fellow drovers for company.....but with sheep a laddie can get lonely and a sheep get lucky........

Curse the English!

[Argus]

Wow, Kewl! You mean we can say stuff about the Jews here too?? Awesome, I love sites like this, wide open where you can say anything you want... I got some great research stuff on zundels theories, you folks would never believe it!

No, I don't expect we will. But we'll do our best to point out the error of you ways.

[Argus]

No it's the other way around. One Scotsman shags a sheep, thus the right calls for mass deportations and segregation between Scotsman and non-Scotsman. Then the liberals rightfully point out the non-Scotsman have also been shagging sheep, and that each person should be judged as an individual. Then the right claims that the Scotsman shags sheep due to genetics, culture, etc.

If every field you came to had a sheep with a Scotsman standing behind rutting away then the fact that not ALL Scotsmen shagged sheep would still not detract from the reputation of Scots as being dangerous to have around your sheep.

Furthermore, if you took a poll of Scotsmen in a variety of countries and found that the majority in every country was in favour or shagging sheep, even if they hadn't all personally done so, I would figure that gave plenty of evidence of the propensity of Scots to shag sheep.

But then I believe in logic and common sense. And you believe in dancing through the daisies with pink sunglasses while singing "We are the world".

[ScottSA]

No it's the other way around. One Scotsman shags a sheep, thus the right calls for mass deportations and segregation between Scotsman and non-Scotsman. Then the liberals rightfully point out the non-Scotsman have also been shagging sheep, and that each person should be judged as an individual. Then the right claims that the Scotsman shags sheep due to genetics, culture, etc.

If only one Scotsman shagged a sheep, I don't expect it would be a topic of polite conversation at all, on either the right of the left. However, since many Scotsman shag sheep, one may use heuristics and declare that Scotsman shag sheep. If it appears that many Scotsmen shag sheep while most or many more cheer on the sheep shaggers, or secretly loath sheep and wish they would all be shagged, or better yet turned into mutton chops, or even better turned into Scotsmen, then we have a problem. Or at least sheep have a problem. The solutions are manyfold; probably the best being to stop inviting Scotsmen to sheep farms, and lay down the law to the Scotsmen who insist upon visiting. The solution most certainly isn't to invite MORE Scotsmen to sheep farms while celebrating their diversity and customs, now is it?

Edited October 17, 2007 by ScottSA

[Canadian Blue]

Which is why I never allow Scotsman and the Dutch near the family farm.

[ScottSA]

Which is why I never allow Scotsman and the Dutch near the family farm.

Gosh, that sounds bigoted. Or should I say "racist?"

[Canadian Blue]

I'm simply trying to learn what life is like in your shoes.

[ScottSA]

I'm simply trying to learn what life is like in your shoes.

That can't be true, because I never chase Scotsmen away from the family farm. I'm one meself, ken?

[Canadian Blue]

Exactly, and based on your logic its perfectly reasonable to dislike all Scotsman due to the actions of the few. However you're making assumptions of the entire group by painting them all with the same brush.

[Michael Hardner]

Plus - any Scotsman that tries to get away from all of that activity gets tarred with the same brush (maybe not a good metaphor... 'dressed with the same wool sweater' ? I dunno...) as the ones that take part in the activity.

Hey there Scott,

The "conservative base" doesn't debate itself, it debates the left, and just about anything works against the left, because emotion holds by far the higher place in the leftist pantheon than in the "conservative base," which tends to hold rationality in higher esteem. That's why the left assumes without thinking that "racism" means whatever one feels they should mean, while the right points out that the term is a derivative of "race," and much therefore refer to things racial

Emotion by far holds the higher place in your argument. I'm not going to call the emotion at play "hate" because that plays into the accusation that those opposed to you 'shreik', but it's certainly something like 'dislike'.

Your 'dislike' of other types of people drives this entire line of investigation, and so emotionality is at the root.