# I pit the racist radio jockeys of Power 99 FM **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 12, 2005, 8:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-racist-radio-jockeys-of-power-99-fm/284364 "2005-01-12T08:44:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![The\_King\_of\_Soup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a87d85/32.png) [@The\_King\_of\_Soup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_King_of_Soup)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2005, 10:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-racist-radio-jockeys-of-power-99-fm/284364/61 "2005-01-14T10:53:18Z")
**Liberal** , pardon my habit of addressing the group as a whole rather than you directly. I didn’t realize it offended your sense of decency, I just thought it was a more subtle way to irritate you than, say, descending to feckless speculation about your appearance. At any rate, now you’ve been motivated by whatever impetus to address some of your remarks to the topic at hand, so I’ll stop goading you. But first a note of concern: it is not normal for bags of shit to explode. You may want to modify your diet. Or reinforce your plumbing. Anyway, to business: 1. I’m not concerned with anthropological definitions of race, and neither are most bigots I’ve met (though I imagine there’s a certain number who study the topic assiduously, if only to glean snippets of support for their beliefs). I’ll go with my dictionary, which permits defining it along national, cultural, religious, language or ethnic lines as well. Yep, that’s a broad definition, hypothetically permitting a man to have racist attitudes toward his identical twin. I don’t see that as a problem because 2. We can recognize that racism is an inherently broad term, covering color bias, national chauvinism, religious bigotry and more, and realize that we can’t mean all of it at once any more than we do when using any other word with multiple definitions. It gets muddled some by the fact that few people who hate other groups different from them stop at just one. That means we must be concerned with specific actions and give up on simply labeling people as racist. This is a good idea for practical reasons also: label someone a racist and communication pretty much stops: you’ve excluded them from social norms and perversely freed them to do as they will. They’re also forced to find company only among the similarly excluded and your chance of persuading them is gone. I think success is more likely if we say “that was a stupid bigoted thing to do” rather than “you’re a racist.” The former holds the potential for redemption, the latter does not. 3. We can recognize there are different degrees of racist acts, ranging from the woman who refuses to patronize certain minority-owned shops to the man who conspires to blow up a church. This frees us from the definitional trap of any-taint-of-racism-equals-you-are-a-racist-equals-you-are irredeemably-evil that is the basic problem with an expansive definition. 4. Take these DJs. Were there actions racist? I think so. The abuse started when they learned the victim was Indian and included mocking her accent, use of the epithet “filthy rat-eater,” and telling her she wasn’t fit to enter certain transactions with white people. Are _they_ racists? I have to say, I think probably not. I don’t think they subscribe to any particular theory of racism (other than “it’s okay to abuse people not like us”), and I think their motivation was to amuse their audience. But because I want to focus on actions, that doesn’t get them off the hook. “Be careful what you pretend to be,” because, I’d add, you’re still responsible for what you do. Dragging in motives and trying to determine an actor’s racial attitudes is something I’d try to avoid anyway. It’s too hard and it reminds me of why I’m not a fan of hate-crime legislation: it’s a big step toward punishing people for evil thoughts rather than evil deeds, which is poisonous to freedom (Hey, **Liberal** – I think I just said something you can agree with). 5. If the concern over a broad definition of racism is that people will have to be more careful about they treat others, especially those different from them, I’ve got to say I’d need to see proof of the harm that would result. If the concern is that there would be a chilling effect on the freedom to say or do whatever we want to anybody, well there might be. But it would be a restriction imposed not by a government but by a sense of what effect our words and actions might have on others, which isn’t necessarily bad either. I used to be a big believer in the fundamental right to be a complete jerk within the boundaries of the law. As I grow older, not so much. Another concern is that broadening the definition enough would make enough nominal racists that the term would lose its stigma. That’s why I favor focussing on actions rather than labeling people. In short, I have a broad view of what can constitute a race, but I’d prefer the narrowest possible use of the term “racist.” ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2005, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-racist-radio-jockeys-of-power-99-fm/284364/62 "2005-01-14T14:04:34Z")
King of Soup I’m pleased you dropped the spooky third-person business, but disappointed (mildly) that you pretend not to understand that it is insulting and condescending to speak _about_ a person as though he weren’t in the room (or on the board). Also, as a heads up, it was a mistake to declare that your purpose was merely to “irritate”, since that is against the rules of the board. Finally, bags of shit explode on Halloween because juvenile delinquents put firecrackers in them and ring doorbells. I don’t know what dictionary you’re using that defines racism as encompassing practically everything under the sun — religion!? … language!? — but I have American Heritage, and it defines it as “(1) The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. (2) Discrimination or prejudice based on race.” An online dictionary, _Wordnet_, defines it as “(1) the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races. (2) discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race”. I’m afraid that by using the term “racist” to mean disliking people who speak with a drawl, or disliking people who venerate the Virgin Mary, we’ve made racism into ordinary umbrage or cynicism. In fact, I would wager that the vast majority of people would be racist — such as the Democrats who hate Bush, or the Republicans who hate Clinton. And in fact, everyone participating in the thread bashing Bush for saying [sic] that only Christians should be president is a racist. That just won’t do. A better term, in my opinion, is “bigotry”. ---
**Author:** ![Zebra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c0e974/32.png) [@Zebra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zebra)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2005, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-racist-radio-jockeys-of-power-99-fm/284364/63 "2005-01-14T17:00:46Z")
So **Liberal** , why didn’t you, in your first post, simply say that the DJs are bigots and not racists? Could it be that a statement like that wouldn’t give you a chance to run down ‘the left’? Or is that such a statement wouldn’t make the thread about you. ---
**Author:** ![The\_King\_of\_Soup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a87d85/32.png) [@The\_King\_of\_Soup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_King_of_Soup)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2005, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-racist-radio-jockeys-of-power-99-fm/284364/64 "2005-01-14T17:07:15Z")
Oh, dear, **Liberal**. Still mad, even after I promised to stop goading you? O.K., I hereby disavow any part of my posts that were personally degrading or insulting (in the BBQ Pit, no less). Especially as a review of your own posts demonstrates a scrupulous disregard for such. [QUOTE=Liberal] Fuck you,…I picture you as a fat Buddha, sitting in your underwear, slumped over a pigsty desk, drippings from a nondescript and half-rotted vegetable tottering in a string of drool that dribbles from your chin and falls into the folds of your belly, where it mixes with sticky day-old sweat and the oozings from pustules. [QUOTE/] Oh, damn, how did \*that \* get in there? Everybody, ignore that, okay? Oh please, _please_ don’t report my posts which, even though they contain no personal insults (okay, maybe a veiled one) or even any naughty language, offend you. And I’m glad that your own poop doesn’t actually explode, and that your knowledgable explication of the tactics involved explains a lot of your posts. Let’s face it: for some of us, _every day_ is Halloween. Meanwhile, my favorite dictionary, the Oxford Universal, was printed in 1933, before the Clintons could have got their hands on it. If you’ll reread my entire post, you’ll see that my definition of racist is much more restrictive than my definition of racism. I’ll summarize for you (Heaven knows, and I admit, I could use a good editor): anybody might commit a racist act, for which, depending on what it is, they may deserve public censure, or, if they’ve broken laws, worse. “Racist” is a term that should be reserved for those that have demonstrated a commitment to the ideal that one group (as my dictionary defined it) is inherently superior to, and has a natural right to oppress, another. But that ideal, warped as it is, should not by itself be illegal. I think (as I said) this term should be used restrictively even among those who commit racist acts. I’m well aware that racist acts and thoughts can occur even among the best of us. For example, if a member of a minority does something bad, and a person hurls a racial epithet at him, that may mean an underlying racism or it may mean that the epithet was just a convenient thing to call him for a person who lacked education and imagination. Racist acts, judged independently and in proportion, are what we _should_ look at, and assess them accordingly. And “speaking with a drawl” is one of the things that don’t, even in my dictionary, constitute a race. So those folks are safe from insult so far as their accent is concerned. But if you want, if you think those folks really need to be protected from persecution, you can appeal to the American political left, and perhaps they’ll expand the definition for you. Honest,\*\* Liberal\*\*, now that you’re talking about the topic, I have no quarrel with you. Let’s discuss and debate. But let’s do it within the grounds set by the OP, okay? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2005, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-racist-radio-jockeys-of-power-99-fm/284364/65 "2005-01-14T17:24:25Z")
> [@Zebra](#): > > So **Liberal** , why didn’t you, in your first post, simply say that the DJs are bigots and not racists? You’ve been here since 2000 and have missed discussions of this? Like [this one](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=5652133&highlight=bigotry#post5652133): “I’ve always called it bigotry, and that’s why I believe that usage of the pejorative “fundie” is bigoted.”? > [@](#): > > Could it be that a statement like that wouldn’t give you a chance to run down ‘the left’? Nonsense. Bigotry exudes from both sides of the aisle. Leftists are bigoted against a litany of classes. Including other bigots. > [@](#): > > Or is that such a statement wouldn’t make the thread about you. I think you’re doing a fine job of that on your own. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2005, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-racist-radio-jockeys-of-power-99-fm/284364/66 "2005-01-14T17:47:25Z")
> [@The King of Soup](#): > > Oh, dear, **Liberal**. […much desultory babbling…] Whatever. > [@](#): > > Meanwhile, my favorite dictionary, the Oxford Universal, was printed in 1933, before the Clintons could have got their hands on it. Odd. According to Keith Wheelock, a Sloan Fellow from MIT, who [examined the history of race and racism](http://www.raritanval.edu/departments/HumanitiesSocSci/Part-Time/Wheelock/wc2whatwho10703.doc), there is not even a listing for the word “racism” in the Oxford Universal Dictionary, 3rd Edition, 1947. In fact, his research shows that the first mention of the word was by Ruth Benedict in \*Race and Racism \* in 1942. How did it make its way into your 1933 edition? > [@](#): > > If you’ll reread my entire post, you’ll see that my definition of racist is much more restrictive than my definition of racism. Well, that’s just crazy. A racist is someone who engages in racism, just as a pragmatist is someone who engages in pragmatism. We cannot give the antropic term a different meaning than the ordinary noun. > [@](#): > > I’ll summarize for you (Heaven knows, and I admit, I could use a good editor): anybody might commit a racist act, for which, depending on what it is, they may deserve public censure, or, if they’ve broken laws, worse. “Racist” is a term that should be reserved for those that have demonstrated a commitment to the ideal that one group (as my dictionary defined it) is inherently superior to, and has a natural right to oppress, another. But that ideal, warped as it is, should not by itself be illegal. I think (as I said) this term should be used restrictively even among those who commit racist acts. I’m well aware that racist acts and thoughts can occur even among the best of us. For example, if a member of a minority does something bad, and a person hurls a racial epithet at him, that may mean an underlying racism or it may mean that the epithet was just a convenient thing to call him for a person who lacked education and imagination. Racist acts, judged independently and in proportion, are what we _should_ look at, and assess them accordingly. And “speaking with a drawl” is one of the things that don’t, even in my dictionary, constitute a race. So those folks are safe from insult so far as their accent is concerned. But if you want, if you think those folks really need to be protected from persecution, you can appeal to the American political left, and perhaps they’ll expand the definition for you. You said your dictionary listed “language” as among the targets of racism (setting aside the bizarre contradiction between you and the MIT graduate). A dialect is part of a language. > [@](#): > > Honest,\*\* Liberal\*\*, now that you’re talking about the topic, I have no quarrel with you. Let’s discuss and debate. But let’s do it within the grounds set by the OP, okay? What grounds? What race is the woman from India? Isn’t the OP about her? ---
**Author:** ![lucyetc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19b73/32.png) [@lucyetc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucyetc)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2005, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-racist-radio-jockeys-of-power-99-fm/284364/67 "2005-01-14T18:15:32Z")
> [@Happy Scrappy Hero Pup](#): > > WHAT? > > No they didn’t. > > Now you’re projecting your need to make them racist onto their words. > Were you in the booth with them? Did they discuss this joke with you either before or after they made it? You’re going way too far afield with this. > Assholes, yes. Definite proof of racism? No. Why else did they call her a filthy rat eater? They didn’t know whether she was poor or not. It’s not an all-purpose insult like asshole. They only did it because she’s Indian. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ea5d25/32.png) [@Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Scrappy_Hero_Pup)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2005, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-racist-radio-jockeys-of-power-99-fm/284364/68 "2005-01-14T19:05:26Z")
Ummmmm… lucyetc, you may not be reading your own posts, but others are. > [@lucyetc](#): > > Filthy rat eater is simply not an all-purpose insult like “asshole”. I find it really hard to believe that anyone would use it randomly, in a case where the abusee was not associated with poverty. We’re also reading this one: > [@lucyetc](#): > > They assumed she was desparately poor because she was Indian. And now we’re supposed to believe this? > [@lucyetc](#): > > Why else did they call her a filthy rat eater? > They didn’t know whether she was poor or not. It’s not an all-purpose insult like asshole. > They only did it because she’s Indian. When come back, bring consistency. And maybe you could answer MY questions: What would you reasonably expect a radio announcer to assume about a person with an English accent, or a Canadian (“what’s this aboot”) accent based on a phone conversation? Even if that Englishman was Lennox Lewis or the Canadian was Anson Carter? You’d never rush to condemn “anti-white” bigotry inherent in the common perception of all English or Canadians as white in the same manner that you are so quick to condemn anti-brown bigotry because of the common perception that all Indians are brown. Star and Buc Wild were assholes, but not racist according to the definition of the word. I’d call them jingoistic assholes, but that’s as far as I’d go. They made crude regional humor at the expense of some poor employee who happened to pick up the phone. Jingoism. There are reasonable-doubt holes here big enough to drive a truck through. You might be offended, but this “prank” can’t be called racist any more than you can be called consistent. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2005, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-racist-radio-jockeys-of-power-99-fm/284364/69 "2005-01-14T20:40:19Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Whatever. Dude, he out-funnied you while you were busy posting what, at best, was a total tangent and at worst was a total hijack into the realm of political bashing. ‘The Left’ indeed. And by the way, since you **have** come out and said that phrases which seek to make political groups fungible piss you off, _you should stop doing it to other people_. But the point is, it’s well within pit limits. Kiss and make up. > [@Liberal](#): > > Well, that’s just crazy. A racist is someone who engages in racism, just as a pragmatist is someone who engages in pragmatism. We cannot give the antropic term a different meaning than the ordinary noun. Nope, one relies on a (possibly) bogus concept of essence and identity, the other is an operational definition. If a total slacker happens to engage in pragmatism once, are they a pragmatist? What if an atheist spends a week believing in a god? No… an instance of behavior, even a series of instances, does not guarantee essence. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2005, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-racist-radio-jockeys-of-power-99-fm/284364/70 "2005-01-14T22:33:47Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Nonsense. Bigotry exudes from both sides of the aisle. Leftists are bigoted against a litany of classes. Including other bigots. How marvelously clever! So, if I may ask again, why did you bring up the left in this thread? ---
**Author:** ![The\_King\_of\_Soup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a87d85/32.png) [@The\_King\_of\_Soup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_King_of_Soup)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2005, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-racist-radio-jockeys-of-power-99-fm/284364/71 "2005-01-15T04:38:18Z")
I swear, offer some people an olive branch and all they see is a club. **Liberal** , you might reconsider the tactic of putting your words in quote boxes with my name on them. You can just as easily put them outside the box where they can be box-quoted in turn. Like so: > [@Liberal](#): > > Whatever. … **Liberal** says, as he feverishly tongue-polishes an old chess trophy/fetish object in an effort to suppress the knowledge that he bought it at a yard sale. See? [NOTE TO EVERYBODY: THE FOREGOING WAS MERELY AN ILLUSTRATION. LIBERAL WON THAT TROPHY FAIR AND SQUARE, AGAINST THE BEST COMPETITION IN HIS STATE, WITHIN HIS CLASS/AGE GROUP, AT THAT TOURNAMENT, THAT YEAR. AND YOU’D BETTER BELIEVE IT.] Anyway, your first point is that the word “racism” didn’t appear in the Oxford Universal Dictionary before 1947. The '33 edition does include the word “race,” though, which is the word I said I was defining. So you’ve proved conclusively that I couldn’t have used the '33 OUD to define a word…that was not the one I used it to define. Quite a coup. I don’t know if it’s sadder that you thought the issue was important, or that you botched it, or that you haven’t decided to stay very quiet on the matter of citing sources. Interestingly, though the '33 edition doesn’t define “racism” it does include the word “racialism” (not as a separate entry), so perhaps Mr. Wheelock’s focus was a bit narrow. In any event, the OUD '47 definition of “race” Wheelock cites is even broader than the one I adopted. Your second point is that it’s crazy to say that racism can be defined more broadly than racist (the noun). Not really. One can use language without being a linguist, ponder the atom without being a physicist, and read Plato without being a classicist. Hence my stressing the need to evaluate individual acts rather than individuals. Someone may act kindly one day and cruelly the next. We’d be ill-equipped to label that person either kind or cruel, but we _can_ judge their actions. Similarly, there’s no law that says for every racist act you have to be able to call someone a racist. But your point, though wrong, is also not relevant. I’m saying that even if we can (from a strictly lexical perspective) call someone a racist, we mostly shouldn’t, for a host of reasons that have nothing to do with the dictionary. Your third point is that a dialect is part of a language. Okay by me. Speaking with a drawl, if that’s what you’re referring to, doesn’t qualify as a dialect, which requires some significant difference in words as well as pronounciation. But as I said, if you want to make the argument that drawlers fit the definition too, go ahead. You’d do better, I think, with a group like the Gullahs. Last, you ask again to what race the woman from India belongs. I don’t know – the article didn’t say. She could fit into several categories - no person is just one thing (which is kind of the point). Since my definition encompasses national chauvinism, “from India” is enough for me. **Happy Scrappy Hero Pup** , I called it racist abuse by people who probably aren’t racists, you call 'em jingoistic assholes, and I’ll buy that too. We draw the line in slightly different places, but close enough, I think, to get along. **Everybody** : Happy weekend, goodnight, and I’ll see you later. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2005, 9:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-racist-radio-jockeys-of-power-99-fm/284364/72 "2005-01-15T09:33:27Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > How marvelously clever! So, if I may ask again, why did you bring up the left in this thread? Because it was the left making a scene. The right doesn’t call every hateful word directed at other cultures “racist”. That’s what the left does, except when, as in the case of the soup king, he is using them against Indians. Then the left calls it — what was it FinnAgain said? — oh yeah, funny. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2005, 9:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-racist-radio-jockeys-of-power-99-fm/284364/73 "2005-01-15T09:44:52Z")
King of Soup: Two Questions 1. Why did you lie about your alleged dictionary defining racism to include language and religion? You claim now that you were defining race, not racism, when in fact what you wrote was: “Meanwhile, my favorite dictionary, the Oxford Universal, was printed in 1933, before the Clintons could have got their hands on it. If you’ll reread my entire post, you’ll see that my definition of **racist** is much more restrictive than my definition of **racism**.” You mentioned both racism and racist, but not race. 2. What race is the woman from India? Since you’re so feverishly defending her against racism, surely you must know that she is not Caucasian, because you’ve already exempted them from the possibility of experiencing racism. So what race is it that you’re protecting? I see that you’ve reverted back to your infantile Borg language, in the hope that you will — as you put it — irritate me. I sincerely do not mind if you continue to dangle on that precipice. But don’t go too far too quick. You’re a most engaging Chihuahua. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2005, 9:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-racist-radio-jockeys-of-power-99-fm/284364/74 "2005-01-15T09:51:18Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Nope, one relies on a (possibly) bogus concept of essence and identity, the other is an operational definition. If a total slacker happens to engage in pragmatism once, are they a pragmatist? What if an atheist spends a week believing in a god? > No… an instance of behavior, even a series of instances, does not guarantee essence. Dont’ they teach English where you are? “Ist” and “ism” are both class Ib affixes, according to Aronoff’s word formation rules. ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2005, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-racist-radio-jockeys-of-power-99-fm/284364/75 "2005-01-15T13:07:39Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Because it was the left making a scene. The right doesn’t call every hateful word directed at other cultures “racist”. That’s what the left does, except when, as in the case of the soup king, he is using them against Indians. Then the left calls it — what was it FinnAgain said? — oh yeah, funny. Um…the _left_? I can see where you found the left in this. The article linked came from The Times of India (powered by IndiaTimes), a famous leftist blog. I believe their motto even reads “None more left. No hearts bleed more than ours.” Then of course there is **maleinblack** ’s closing sentence from the OP. > [@](#): > > This rant may be influenced in part **because of me being an Indian** but it was a disgusting act of racism nonetheless. I am sure the doper community feels the same. You can see he clearly states that he is a bleeding heart leftist who wants to censor the language and restrict the thoughts of others. CURSE YOU LEFTIES! WHY CAN’T YOU JUST TAKE A JOKE WITHOUT MAKING A SCENE?!?! 😛 Tell ya what Liberal, why don’t you write The Times of India or ask maleinblack what race the woman was? They could probably answer you better than we could. Of course, you have a tendency to nitpick. Maybe you like it. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2005, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-racist-radio-jockeys-of-power-99-fm/284364/76 "2005-01-15T13:38:53Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Dont’ they teach English where you are? “Ist” and “ism” are both class Ib affixes, according to Aronoff’s word formation rules. I’m not even sure how I should answer. Does this mean you’re going to disregard what I said and attempt to nitpick using someones rules of prescriptive grammar? And just because I can’t help myself: you just served as an object lesson for **Gaudere** ’s law. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2005, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-racist-radio-jockeys-of-power-99-fm/284364/77 "2005-01-16T04:55:08Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Because it was the left making a scene. Where was this exactly? The only guy who used the word racist before you butted in was the OP, and I think we’ve already covered that. The other posters just said it wasn’t funny. It’d be one thing if you just responded to leftists when they posted something, you know, leftish, but now you’re seeing them all over the place and lashing out. You’re a racist against liberals. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2005, 10:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-racist-radio-jockeys-of-power-99-fm/284364/78 "2005-01-16T10:18:03Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Where was this exactly? The only guy who used the word racist before you butted in was the OP, and I think we’ve already covered that. The other posters just said it wasn’t funny. Butted in? Mine was the fifth post in the thread. 😃 Your ass didn’t appear until post number forty-six, in which your contribution was to call me a douchebag. > [@](#): > > It’d be one thing if you just responded to leftists when they posted something, you know, leftish, but now you’re seeing them all over the place and lashing out. You’re a racist against liberals. No, you idiot, I am a _bigot_ against _leftists_. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2005, 10:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-racist-radio-jockeys-of-power-99-fm/284364/79 "2005-01-16T10:33:05Z")
And, the issue that one can have instances of racist actions/thoughts without being a racist? Or is that covered in chapter 1.3 c of whoozits wutzhits and whys? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2005, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-racist-radio-jockeys-of-power-99-fm/284364/80 "2005-01-16T18:06:58Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > And, the issue that one can have instances of racist actions/thoughts without being a racist? > Or is that covered in chapter 1.3 c of whoozits wutzhits and whys? Actually, you’ve side-stepped a bit from His Heinyness. His assertion was that “rac_ism_” and “rac_ist_” have fundamentally different root meanings. What you are asking now is whether an adjective describing an instance — “instances of racist actions/thoughts” — and an adjective describing a person — “being a racist” — must have the same scope. And I would say that that is a subjective judgment. Some people are more tolerant than others. Some might allow only one instance of racist thought, and another might allow two or three a week. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-racist-radio-jockeys-of-power-99-fm/284364.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-racist-radio-jockeys-of-power-99-fm/284364.md?page=5)