The definition of creepy

Post Reply New Topic

There is a linguistic theory that says:

a. it is unreasonable and plain wrong [bigotry, in fact] to insist on using a word with its jargon connotations in normal discourse in the broader community, upbraiding for example those who claim to see steam rising from the freezing lake.

b. it is unreasonable and plain wrong to persist in using a word with its larger world meaning in contexts where jargon is called for, for example on a physics test defining "work" as "stuff you do that is not for fun"

c. it is unreasonable and plain wrong to bring into civilized discussion the usage of propaganda. To label ANY expression of opinion on a certain subject bigotry is to rule out any attempts at reason.

So... a racist, a bigot, a conservative, a liberal, a {insert any other label here} cannot be called such, because to label them for their actions/words is to rule out any attempts at reason. Huh. Well, I guess that solves all the problems on earth then. Sweet. Who's going to alert the media so we can start a round of Kumbaya? (Just make sure the OP doesn't have to hold hands with a homo.)

Exactly.

A bigot is "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance." (thank you mirriam-webster)

"The predominant usage in modern English refers to persons hostile to those of differing race, ethnicity, nationality, inter-regional prejudice, gender and sexual orientation, homelessness, various medical disorders particularly behavioral disorders and addictive disorders and religion or spirituality. " <-- Straight from Wikipedia.

You can be a bigot if you have a strong intolerance/hate toward gays, blacks, muslims, the French, the homeless, autistic people, invalids, addicts, etc, for what they are. This is not rocket science, folks.

Chrissyrun,

I see your point and I see what you mean. It is good to see people who are still pure of heart (though they are increasingly few and far between) and your efforts to educate and enlighten here are admirable.

However, it is obvious that your words of wisdom fall upon deaf ears. When you shed light on something and someone is convicted, they will rail against you, attack you and defend and justify that which they know is wrong.

Please don't stop shining the light. But also know that this is a depraved, dark and sinful world. Your words will fall upon many deaf ears. Yes, the one heart you reach will be worth it, but what you have said here speaks for itself. No sense in arguing with people who just don't get it. Some people don't want to be saved, sadly enough.

There are many Biblical references for you that substantiate your claims. This one is powerful and encompasses several of the things you cited.
Romans 1:18-32

And this is much of what you are experiencing here:
Isaiah 5:20

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness;
Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

I hope you will continue with your beliefs and not be discouraged.
People often don't like truth too much. It scares them.

I have nothing else to say to any of those who are attacking, only chrissyrun and those who have offered reasonable comment (not those who were looking for a fight, those who could not see the value of the post, only the part that offended them - a part that was truth, uncomfortable or not).

Just for the record, I love all people, but sinful behavior I cannot condone. It isn't the people she was speaking against in her post - it was the behavior. There was no attack on persons or groups or even their beliefs for that matter, just the behavior itself.

And she is right.

Hate the sin, love the sinner.

A conservative or a liberal or one of many other such categories may say he is such. A person may say something that you associate with the conservative stance, and there is no problem with saying AH, with respect to economics you are a conservative. Perfectly fine, perfectly fair.

If you took something I said and told me I sound like a liberal I would tell you, perhaps, no, I am by no means a liberal, but I happen to agree with such and such a proposition frequently endorsed by liberals. No harm no foul.

But suppose one of my professors - a man who worked at length and in depth on African languages in Africa and elsewhere - says in your hearing, as he in fact said in mine "I know that all Africans have something that sets them apart because I know how to make any African laugh."

Now of course, that statement by itself ought to make quite a few Africans laugh - it is a silly belief even though not life-threatening [if you are listening]. But is he a racist? He has expressed an opinion generalizing about a particular human subgroup on the basis of race.

Perhaps you will say yes. If one opinion on the wrong subject makes a racist, defines a bigot - then ma fran PRETTY WELL EVERYBODY IN THE WORLD IS ONE KIND BIGOT OR ANOTHER. In which case the term is meaningless except as a groundless insult. Like attempting to insult me in the olden time [the attempt failed because until years later I had NO idea what was being said] by labelling me a homosexual because I was a Green Monkey.

But I think that the various recognized subsets of bigotry, sexism, racism, or those focussed on religion or dress or sexuality, to have any value need to be used NOT every time a difference of opinion appears but were there is a particular acros the board attitude and intensity.

So, "don't call me a bigot or a racist, because I'm not that bad."

Got it.