6 ms·

> 'Bigotry'. noun : intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself. Surely castigating the owner of Chick-fil-A for advocating his personal

> 'Bigotry'. noun : intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself. Surely castigating the owner of Chick-fil-A for advocating his personal beliefs is the truest example of bigotry here.

starkruzr 8y ago
No, not really, since his personal beliefs involve advocating for others to suffer. He suffers nothing by permitting LGBT people to live as they wish.
pvg 8y ago
You should probably not rely on Google's fairly crappy dictionary definitions.
- factsaresacred 8y ago
  Yes, instead of relying on dictionaries, words should mean whatever you want them to mean.
  - pvg 8y ago
    Bigotry does not just mean 'intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.' It's a silly definition, not what I want it to mean.
    - Fellshard 8y ago
      Language does not operate on the basis of what the speaker _wants_ it to mean.
      - pvg 8y ago
        I don't understand what ghost windmill you are tilting at here. At all. It certainly doesn't seem to be anything I've actually said.
        Fellshard 8y ago
        I have a pretty personal beef with the idea that language can simply be contorted to supposedly mean whatever someone feels like it should mean, as heading down that road is basically abandoning meaning and communication altogether, and is wholly incoherent.
        pvg 8y ago
        Yeah but... I didn't say any of that.
        kbutler 8y ago
        > It's a silly definition, not what I want it to mean. You wrote this intending to say, "I'm saying the dictionary definition is silly, not that bigotry should mean what I want it to mean." Instead, the sentence says, "The dictionary definition is silly, [because it's] not what I want it to mean."
        Fellshard 8y ago
        That's fair, I likely misinterpreted it that way.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
- chipotle_coyote 8y ago
  The quoted definition of bigotry as "intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself" is from the New Oxford American Dictionary, from Oxford University Press (the OED people). If that's what Google is using, I don't think I can rely on your definition of "crappy."
  - pvg 8y ago
    Yep, it's a crappy definition that does not reflect current usage. It doesn't even reflect the definition in the OED, if you want to check there. 'Bigotry' is not limited to difference of opinion. Nobody uses it like that, you can take a look at the quoted usage examples here, which are from current publications. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigotry https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigotry
    - Fellshard 8y ago
      Ahh, yes. Always useful to continuously cherry-pick or alter definitions to tailor words that have an objectively negative moral implication to apply to exactly the standards you want. Just because some publications use the word in that way does not mean the definition of the word should be shifted.
      - pvg 8y ago
        I’m sorry but this is a pointedly stupid comment. I’m doing the exact opposite of cherry-picking - I’m saying the definition is much broader than the inaccurately narrow one posted.
    - chipotle_coyote 8y ago
      The OED is a historical dictionary; the Oxford Dictionary of English and the New Oxford American Dictionary are explicitly meant to reflect more current usage. At any rate, I think this is getting awfully pedantic; the definition you linked is "obstinate or intolerant devotion to one's own opinions and prejudices," which seems similar enough that I'm not really sure what the point of this argument is. Given that I'm fairly sure the point of this was whether Chick-Fil-A's executives and in-the-company's-name giving exhibits bigotry, by any dictionary anyone's linked to, the answer is "yes."
jessaustin 8y ago
Of course neither of those things is actually bigotry. This "oh I'm suffering" crap is disgusting. If we actually cared about suffering our freely elected government wouldn't be causing so much of it.
nearlynameless 8y ago
There is no world in which pointing out the political beliefs espoused by a corporation should be considered an example of bigotry.
darpa_escapee 8y ago
Euphemisms like "advocating for his personal beliefs" wouldn't fly, if say, the owner was donating to organizations that fought to make interracial marriage illegal again. We'd call that what it is: bigotry.
caconym_ 8y ago
I love seeing this argument. It's like you people think you can raise any arbitrary instance of hate/intolerance/bigotry onto a criticism-proof pedestal simply by brandishing a dictionary. Like, who are the real bigots: Nazis, or the nasty people who have the gall to disagree with their racist, antisemitic, etc. views? Is the answer not obvious? Does the question send you scuttling back under your dictionary? I'm fine with a bit of pedantry but ultimately in the real world we need to show a little more intellectual maturity.
- factsaresacred 8y ago
  You're missing the point. I'm not concerned about the word. I'm concerned about the definition - those quickest to cry bigot are often guilty of acting like one themselves. Case-in-point: Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey being forced to apologise for eating at Chick-fil-A during LGBT Month. What kind of bizarre intolerant nonsense is that? Another case-in-point: Boston and Chicago mayors claim "Chick-fil-A values are not [our] values" and refuse to let them open branches in those cities. Absurd.
  - caconym_ 8y ago
    > I'm not concerned about the word. I'm concerned about the definition Come again? It seems like you're the one who's missing the point, anyway. You didn't address anything I wrote in my comment. Par for the course, I guess. Just imagine I wrote the exact same comment again, and reply to that if you feel like it.
  - starshadowx2 8y ago
    The paradox of intolerance[1]: being tolerant of those who are intolerant leads to less tolerance. It is completely right to call out intolerant views and actions and work towards eliminating them. [1] https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Paradox_of_tolerance https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Paradox_of_tolerance
    - weberc2 8y ago
      The obvious problems with 'the paradox of intolerance' being that anyone who can convince themselves of another's intolerance now has moral license to behave intolerantly to an unspecified degree. Of course, exactly this sort of thing happens all the time; notably, it was used to rationalize Google's firing of James Damore--Damore's memo allegedly contained "dogwhistles" so he deserved being fired, slandered by the media, and mobbed on social media.

starkruzr 8y ago

No, not really, since his personal beliefs involve advocating for others to suffer. He suffers nothing by permitting LGBT people to live as they wish.

pvg 8y ago

You should probably not rely on Google's fairly crappy dictionary definitions.

factsaresacred 8y ago
Yes, instead of relying on dictionaries, words should mean whatever you want them to mean.
- pvg 8y ago
  Bigotry does not just mean 'intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.' It's a silly definition, not what I want it to mean.
  - Fellshard 8y ago
    Language does not operate on the basis of what the speaker _wants_ it to mean.
    - pvg 8y ago
      I don't understand what ghost windmill you are tilting at here. At all. It certainly doesn't seem to be anything I've actually said.
      - Fellshard 8y ago
        I have a pretty personal beef with the idea that language can simply be contorted to supposedly mean whatever someone feels like it should mean, as heading down that road is basically abandoning meaning and communication altogether, and is wholly incoherent.
        pvg 8y ago
        Yeah but... I didn't say any of that.
        kbutler 8y ago
        > It's a silly definition, not what I want it to mean. You wrote this intending to say, "I'm saying the dictionary definition is silly, not that bigotry should mean what I want it to mean." Instead, the sentence says, "The dictionary definition is silly, [because it's] not what I want it to mean."
        Fellshard 8y ago
        That's fair, I likely misinterpreted it that way.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
chipotle_coyote 8y ago
The quoted definition of bigotry as "intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself" is from the New Oxford American Dictionary, from Oxford University Press (the OED people). If that's what Google is using, I don't think I can rely on your definition of "crappy."
- pvg 8y ago
  Yep, it's a crappy definition that does not reflect current usage. It doesn't even reflect the definition in the OED, if you want to check there. 'Bigotry' is not limited to difference of opinion. Nobody uses it like that, you can take a look at the quoted usage examples here, which are from current publications. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigotry https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigotry
  - Fellshard 8y ago
    Ahh, yes. Always useful to continuously cherry-pick or alter definitions to tailor words that have an objectively negative moral implication to apply to exactly the standards you want. Just because some publications use the word in that way does not mean the definition of the word should be shifted.
    - pvg 8y ago
      I’m sorry but this is a pointedly stupid comment. I’m doing the exact opposite of cherry-picking - I’m saying the definition is much broader than the inaccurately narrow one posted.
  - chipotle_coyote 8y ago
    The OED is a historical dictionary; the Oxford Dictionary of English and the New Oxford American Dictionary are explicitly meant to reflect more current usage. At any rate, I think this is getting awfully pedantic; the definition you linked is "obstinate or intolerant devotion to one's own opinions and prejudices," which seems similar enough that I'm not really sure what the point of this argument is. Given that I'm fairly sure the point of this was whether Chick-Fil-A's executives and in-the-company's-name giving exhibits bigotry, by any dictionary anyone's linked to, the answer is "yes."

jessaustin 8y ago

Of course neither of those things is actually bigotry. This "oh I'm suffering" crap is disgusting. If we actually cared about suffering our freely elected government wouldn't be causing so much of it.

nearlynameless 8y ago

There is no world in which pointing out the political beliefs espoused by a corporation should be considered an example of bigotry.

darpa_escapee 8y ago

Euphemisms like "advocating for his personal beliefs" wouldn't fly, if say, the owner was donating to organizations that fought to make interracial marriage illegal again. We'd call that what it is: bigotry.

caconym_ 8y ago

I love seeing this argument. It's like you people think you can raise any arbitrary instance of hate/intolerance/bigotry onto a criticism-proof pedestal simply by brandishing a dictionary. Like, who are the real bigots: Nazis, or the nasty people who have the gall to disagree with their racist, antisemitic, etc. views? Is the answer not obvious? Does the question send you scuttling back under your dictionary? I'm fine with a bit of pedantry but ultimately in the real world we need to show a little more intellectual maturity.

factsaresacred 8y ago
You're missing the point. I'm not concerned about the word. I'm concerned about the definition - those quickest to cry bigot are often guilty of acting like one themselves. Case-in-point: Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey being forced to apologise for eating at Chick-fil-A during LGBT Month. What kind of bizarre intolerant nonsense is that? Another case-in-point: Boston and Chicago mayors claim "Chick-fil-A values are not [our] values" and refuse to let them open branches in those cities. Absurd.
- caconym_ 8y ago
  > I'm not concerned about the word. I'm concerned about the definition Come again? It seems like you're the one who's missing the point, anyway. You didn't address anything I wrote in my comment. Par for the course, I guess. Just imagine I wrote the exact same comment again, and reply to that if you feel like it.
- starshadowx2 8y ago
  The paradox of intolerance[1]: being tolerant of those who are intolerant leads to less tolerance. It is completely right to call out intolerant views and actions and work towards eliminating them. [1] https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Paradox_of_tolerance https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Paradox_of_tolerance
  - weberc2 8y ago
    The obvious problems with 'the paradox of intolerance' being that anyone who can convince themselves of another's intolerance now has moral license to behave intolerantly to an unspecified degree. Of course, exactly this sort of thing happens all the time; notably, it was used to rationalize Google's firing of James Damore--Damore's memo allegedly contained "dogwhistles" so he deserved being fired, slandered by the media, and mobbed on social media.