Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I took you to be weaving around an obvious point. If I read you wrong, I am sorry. But the definition so clearly refutes Adder’s reasoning, it’s hard to see how one could argue otherwise.
|
I am not weaving around anything. The WHOLE thing we have talking about, in different ways, is whether someone is a "racist" if they do prejudiced things without the specific intent to be prejudiced. That's the essence of the conversation. You keep talking past what TM and Adder (and I) have tried to say to you because you use the word "racist" in a narrower than other people do.
Oxford's definition shows this. To paraphrase, accurately, Oxford says a "racist" is someone who shows OR feels OR acts intentionally out of prejudice. You reject Oxford's definition -- you use the word only to mean someone who feels or acts intentionally out of prejudice, and you demand real proof of that feeling or intent, which can only come from someone describing racist beliefs. TM and Adder and I are all wiling to call someone a racist if they show prejudice, whether or not there is proof that they feel it or intentionally act out of prejudice. (We also are more willing to infer feelings of prejudice based on indirect proof, such as their actions.)
Pro tip: If you are going to try the whole dictionary-definition gambit, check to first to make sure the definition supports you and not the other guy.
Further pro tip: When you blew dictionary-definition gambit because you didn't check and you got it wrong, don't double down by accusing the other guy of deceit.
I generally agree with what Adder said about the ubiquity of prejudice. I read a book in college, Prejudice, by Gordon Allport, which explains why people are wired to be prejudiced, so I don't see it as a stigmatic moral failing the way I think you do -- I see it as a part of the human condition to be acknowledged and overcome.
