Comments on: I predict a riot

By: Dan

Dan — Tue, 14 Mar 2006 16:05:24 +0000

Having read all of that, I believe that there is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ definition for such words.
The words we use are ambiguous. When we use the words, we cannot determine what other peoples
reactions and understandings will be, we only know what we think it will mean.

For example, when i hear the word ‘Bigot’, I don’t see this as abusive, rather more amusing, however
there are people out there who would think differently.

By: Christopher Shell

Christopher Shell — Tue, 20 Sep 2005 09:03:44 +0000

‘Bigot’ is a term of abuse in 2 contexts:
(a) if it is used as a cheap shot without first providing justification;
(b) if it is intended abusively.

By: Shaun Hollingworth

Shaun Hollingworth — Sat, 10 Sep 2005 11:56:37 +0000

“Someone decided that words with these meanings were suitable as terms of abuse. ”

Not someone. The general population at large decided this.

The meaning of words change all the time. New meanings come in, old ones fall into disuse. This isn’t just valid, it is absolutely necessary for the development of language, (any spoken language) and humanity. If this didn’t happen then language simpy couldn’t evolve, and it needs to do so. We’d be extremely hampered if the only words we were allowed to use were 400 years old or more!

Compare the language of Shakespeare’s time, manifest in his plays, with that of our own time.

By: Shaun Hollingworth

Shaun Hollingworth — Sat, 10 Sep 2005 11:49:31 +0000

According to the dictionaries I consulted “Bigot” isn’t a term of abuse.

”
A person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
”

It is a correct description of Mr. Green, and some others (including posters on here) who seek to persuade the authorities to further rob free people of their right to freedom of expression. They can say whatever they want. I cannot argue otherwise, else I would be a hypocrite. But if they do say it, then I should also be free to call them bigots for saying it.

By: Christopher Shell

Christopher Shell — Fri, 09 Sep 2005 21:32:27 +0000

Hi Marc-
Dont you think some of us are wise and brave enough to hazard that there may be others in the universe who know more about these things than we do? In that light, privileging our own opinion could sometimes be unwarranted.

Tom is right: abusiveness and accuracy are 2 separate questions. I find in practice that ‘bigot’ (and ‘fundamentalist’) belong to a limited pool of stock adjectives which are rather unthinkingly plastered on a wide variety of people.

By: tom p

tom p — Tue, 06 Sep 2005 08:23:34 +0000

I’ve got to disagree with you there Marc, bigot clearly is a term of abuse, however in the case of Stephen Green it is accurately used. Just because something’s abusive doesn’t mean it’s wrong, and just because something’s right doesn’t mean it isn’t abusive.

By: marc

marc — Mon, 05 Sep 2005 22:05:41 +0000

Bigot is not a term of abuse: look in a dictionary. Much of what you write, Christopher puts you plainly into that category in my book and I suspect in the minds of many of the folk here. Most of us here don’t defer to the bearded sky fairy for our opinions, for example, we are wise and brave enough to form our own. Green is a classic example.

By: Andy L

Andy L — Mon, 05 Sep 2005 08:49:00 +0000

Yes Christopher. But, given Stephen Green has put forward no argument whatsoever, and his rantings are completely discredited, we’ve already won and can call him what we like.

By: Christopher Shell

Christopher Shell — Sun, 04 Sep 2005 11:46:03 +0000

For background on the recent trend to confuse stereotyping and name-calling with argument, see CS Lewis’s humorous essay ‘Bulverism’ in his compilation ‘First and Second Things’.

At age 5 Ezekiel Bulver heard his mother say to his father (who had been maintaining that 2 sides of a triangle were together greater than the third) ‘oh, you say that because you are a man.’.
At that point, says Ezekiel – clearly a very precocious 5-year-old, ‘there flashed across my mind that refutation is no necessary part of an argument. Assume that your opponent is wrong, and then explain [or label] the error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that s/he is wrong, or (worse still) to find out whether s/he is wrong or right, and the national dynamism [dynamic? Zeitgeist?] of our age will thrust you to the wall.’
Methinks Bulver’s spiritual progeny are alive and well.

By: Christopher Shell

Christopher Shell — Sun, 04 Sep 2005 10:37:25 +0000

Well – look in the dictionary. Someone decided that words with these meanings were suitable as terms of abuse. Rather than stand against this devaluing trend, you are (for some reason: probably convention or thoughtlessness) affirming it.

Marc – anyone who employs the term ‘bigot’ is also putting themselves in the abuse-before-you-argue camp. Often I think that it should be one of the rules of debate that argument automatically trumps name-calling.