Correct. Your point? I used indicate instead of show. Small deal. Big deal? Green deal!
Last edited:
having OR SHOWING
ped·ant
ˈpednt/
noun
noun: pedant; plural noun: pedants
a person who is excessively concerned with minor details and rules or with displaying academic learning.
Why do you think it's a minor detail whether someone is correctly identified as a racist? I think it's important to understand that unless you're racist your expressions can't be those of a racist person. Integral to this is the acceptance that words or other expressions of ideas cannot themselves be racist.
It's ok. Everyone should have a hobby.
So you don't have a justification for the pedantry charge? Why did you link the racist definition a couple pages back if you aren't interested in what the word means?
But by your definition, there can be no racist people, as we can never know their hearts other than by the contents of their speech. Thus the phrase "black people are useless, inferior sub-creatures and should all die horribly" is no more racist that "black people sometimes play tennis." How does that make sense?Why do you think it's a minor detail whether someone is correctly identified as a racist? I think it's important to understand that unless you're racist your expressions can't be those of a racist person. To this end it seems important to accept that words or other expressions of ideas cannot themselves be racist.
Not interested thanks.
But by your definition, there can be no racist people, as we can never know their hearts other than by the contents of their speech. Thus the phrase "black people are useless, inferior sub-creatures and should all die horribly" is no more racist that "black people sometimes play tennis." How does that make sense?
By your definition, a cop caught texting the first could not be fired. We don't know he is racist; we have no evidence, since he has expressed no racist comments.
You are right and the rest of the world is wrong. I'll begin distributing memos to have all the definitions changed immediately.It's not my definition, and those aren't the implications. The first is an expression of opinion/belief regarding race, while the latter is a benign statement of fact involving race. We don't need to be 100% certain what's in his mind to react to it. Of course it's evidence of racism? It's just not itself racist. That cop is very likely racist, given the context. His text messages aren't racist.
I don't understand why you want it to be so badly. There are no down-sides, and the upside is less needless offense being taken, less pc nonsense, less senseless controversy like what you see all the time with people like kramer, jeremy clarkson, sarah silverman, etc. Why is it more acceptable for black people to use the n word? Maybe because we consider context and give them the benefit of the doubt that they probably don't think of black people as inferior, since they're black (but they could).
Anyway, intent and context are important. Your understanding either ignores intent and context or subconsciously (and inconsistently) incorporates them anyway. We don't gain anything by calling expressions racist. It doesn't mean we can't identify racists.
You are right and the rest of the world is wrong. I'll begin distributing memos to have all the definitions changed immediately.
Because according to you the examples don't fit the definition. They should fix that.The definition doesn't need to be changed. Why would it?
Because according to you the examples don't fit the definition. They should fix that.
Bolded:Maybe you're thinking of someone else? Which examples?
Clearly their examples don't all fit their definition.
Unless by racist he means the comment of a racist. So you have to read it as, "Any old comment I make is immediately construed by some to be the comment of a racist."
I guess that makes sense, if he's racist (or assumed to be), since he does say "any comment." Any comment he makes then rightly would be a construed to be the comment made by a racist person. Though if he says something like, "nice weather today," his racism probably isn't relevant.
Bolded:
I'm sure all the other dictionaries have similar examples so we'll have to get them all changed up for you.Yeah. They don't all, but I only have issue with one. So it's example, not examples.
I'm sure all the other dictionaries have similar examples so we'll have to get them all changed up for you.
No, no, just the examples. I consider the examples to be part of the overall definition. We should make sure Oxford doesn't contradict you.You have a definition with three examples. One of them is problematic, and your solution is to change the definition? sheeeit dawg. Lateral thinking.
No, no, just the examples. I consider the examples to be part of the overall definition. We should make sure Oxford doesn't contradict you.
Just one example, so they don't contradict themselves. So you really think apples can be racist?
Do you really think that one nonsensical example invalidates all examples you don't agree with?
You seem to have misunderstood the point I was making there. You can modify any noun with an adjective and it would be grammatically correct.It invalidates your claim that any adjective can be used with any noun. What about the ambivalent potato? Why not racist apple if racist comment?
What about an albino black person? Hopefully now you understand why you should be careful with broad generalizations.
It's not my definition, and those aren't the implications. The first is an expression of opinion/belief regarding race, while the latter is a benign statement of fact involving race. We don't need to be 100% certain what's in his mind to react to it. Of course it's evidence of racism? It's just not itself racist. That cop is very likely racist, given the context. His text messages aren't racist.
I don't understand why you want it to be so badly. There are no down-sides, and the upside is less needless offense being taken, less pc nonsense, less senseless controversy like what you see all the time with people like kramer, jeremy clarkson, sarah silverman, etc. Why is it more acceptable for black people to use the n word? Maybe because we consider context and give them the benefit of the doubt that they probably don't think of black people as inferior, since they're black (but they could).
Anyway, intent and context are important. Your understanding either ignores intent and context or subconsciously (and inconsistently) incorporates them anyway. We don't gain anything by calling expressions racist. It doesn't mean we can't identify racists.