Or because he was born 20 years before the U.S. Civil War and didn’t see it as worthy of concern. Being a racist wasn’t seen as a real negative until generations later.
Strongly held unreasonable views. King’s views weren’t unreasonable. They were completely reasonable. It’s kind of telling that you missed that word because your opinions about Muslims and religious people are always expressed in strident and totally unreasonable language. One time you ranted for pages on end that you were being persecuted by a hotel that put a Bible in your room. You’re a parody of an atheist. You’re a caricature of what people think Madalyn Murray O’Hair was like.
Well, no, but forgetting about one black SCOTUS justice out of twenty would be understandable. Forgetting about one of two… well, that’s a little worrying. It’s like naming the Jackson Five and forgetting Michael.
I see you’ve admitted your error regarding the black justices, but are you under the mistaken impression the first female Secretary of State was Condoleezza Rice?
How many dictionaries did you have to rummage through before you found a definition that completely neglected to make any reference to prejudice and intolerance? In any case, your definition even claims the beliefs to be unreasonable, so no, even by your definition, we are not forced to conclude that MLK was a “bigot” unless you find something about racial integration intrinsically unreasonable.
Or that it means anything that “the first Hispanic Attorney General” was appointed by a Republican? If you’d said “first Hispanic Cabinet official” that might be worth something, and that was indeed a Republican appointment.
No, I most certainly do not consider Dr. King’s views unreasonable. What I was pointing out is that ANYONE’s strong views can be considered unreasonable by others. But do you know of ANY strong views that have not been considered unreasonable by someone else? Did Lenin not consider the views of the White Russians unreasonable? Did Jefferson Davis and Abraham Lincoln not consider one another’s strongly held views unreasonable? Churchill most certainly considered the views of Hitler unreasonable, but he also considered the views of Gandhi so, as did millions of people in his day, including not only British conservatives but also leftist writers like George Orwell.
People have made the point that the word “unfair” in my definition of racism is as subjective as “unreasonable”. Fair enough. So I will excise that subjective word out of the definition. I have rewrtitten the Cambridge definition as follows.
Racism: /ˈreɪ.sɪ.zəm/ the belief that people’s qualities are influenced by their race and that the members of other races are not as good as the members of your own, or the advocy of different treatment for members of other races based on this alleged inferiority. (Valteron’s definition)
Once again, I challenge you to find where I have, in my many years of participation in SD, said anything that would fit that definition. Come on now, people, surely you can find enough rope to hang me with my own words and convince me I am a racist? I have been called a “racist shitbag” and even some unpleasant things! You must have a modicum of proof?
I meant the first black female Secretary of State. Hey, it was late and I was tired. Gimme a break, mmkay?
The point remains that when it comes to Supreme Court appointments, Cabinet-level posts, and congressional and gubernatorial races, women and minorities have done very well under Republican administrations and Republican electorates. And certainly well enough to disprove the liberal lie that the Republican party is a ‘safe haven’ for racists.
Thanks for the assist.
I disagree however with your view that appointing the first Hispanic Attorney General isn’t worth anything.
That’s why the dictionary says the views must be “unreasonable,” not “thought to be unreasonable by at least one other person.”
I think this is the fourth time in this thread I’ve said you’re a bigot and not a racist. Make that five: you’re a bigot, not a racist. People often say mean when they mean bigot. It’s incorrect, but since racism is a type of bigotry, it’s not something a reasonable person would go crazy over.
The Cambridge was the first dictionary I came across, and as you can read from my other posts, I most certainly do NOT consider MLK’s integrationist views unreasonable. I was simply pointing out that “unreasonable” is a subjective matter, depending on the views of the individual.
Let’s look at my definition again shall we?
bigot noun /ˈbɪg.ət/ a person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs and who thinks that anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong
References to “prejudice” and “intolerance” really do nothing but add more subjective elements. Are you intolerant of Nazis who gas Jews, for example?
Now take these statements:
“Jesus is the one way to salvation.”
“There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his messenger. Those who do not believe in him will suffer a terrible fate in the hereafter.”
Are either of those statements backed by reason and evidence or are they, as their own adherents admit, based on “faith” (i.e. belief without evidentiary support)?
Are they strong beliefs?
Do they express the idea that anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong?
Exactly. People don’t give Bush enough credit. Not only did he appoint Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court, he appointed a second black judge as well. So nobody should say that Bush didn’t go the distance.
Ummm… no. Because there’s already altogether too much use of that particular slimy tactic: “Liberals are bad, and here are some reasons why, none of which I’ve actually bothered to verify, because who cares?” A few of the reasons will have merit, some might be true if word definitions are stretched, and some are outright false.
I have no incentive to seriously consider any point you raise as long as you consistently use such slipshod fact-checking. You simply don’t have a sufficient amount of credibility for me to forgive a few lapses here and there - not when your entire posting style is one giant ongoing lapse.
You are assuming that “unreasonable” or “reasonable” are objective, measurable qualities on which we can all agree. For example, are pro-lifers or pro-choice the ones who hold unreasonable views? How about the pros and antis on the capital punishment issue?
Who holds the unreasonable view? Those who think that a manned mission to mars is a waste of money, or those who think it is worth the money?
When you call me a bigot, all you are saying is that you find my views unreasonable. Guess what? I find yours unreasonable and mine reasonable. If not, I would abandon my views and embrace yours.
Have you ever looked at two views and consciously embraced the one that you considered unreasonable compared to the one you considered reasonable? I would consider you weird if you did!
So in a sense, it is unlikely anyone has ever said: “I choose the following unreasonable view and I choose to hold it strongly. Since I know my view to be unreasonable, then the opposing view must be reasonable. But I nontheless consider the opposing view to be wrong.”
I have used the technique called reductio ad absurdium to illustrate that the word “bigot” is nothing more than a subjective insult used against those who do not agree with your views.
“Racism” on the other hand,is composed of definite, identifiable elements: a belief that one’s own race is superior or better than another, and the desire to treat members of the other race differently based on that alleged superiority/inferiority relationship of the two races.
Perhaps the person who called me a “racist shitbag” for saying the west should recognize the threat posed by the world-wide jihad could explain why he feels I fit the definition. But he would have to explain to me why Islam can be considered a race, since it is a belief/ideology has nothing to do with genetics or inherited traits.
I’m sorry that you find words like “bigot,” “prejudice” and “intolerance” to be subjective and unmeasurable. How about this: You do not like Muslims, and think they are bad. Is that clear enough, or are we going to quibble endlessly about what it means to “hate” or be “bad”?
That’s right! Back in the good old days, before the liberals messed everything up! Back when girls wore dresses, and boys wore ties, and black boys who whistled wore this sort of cravat thingy made of rope. Thems were the days!
Since Valteron is so stubbornly insistent on not perceiving any difference between radical, moderate, and liberal branches of Islam, I find it rather amusing that he’s demanding that the rest of us make a distinction between bigot and racist. Not that he’s wrong that there’s a distinction, it’s just amusing to see him get so twisted up over precisely the same behavior in which he engages with virtually every post he makes.
But yes, for the record, Valteron, you’re not a racist. You subscribe to a subtly different brand of loathsome shitheelery. Congratulations. You want a ribbon for it, or something? Why don’t you go away and come back when you’ve finally learned how to be a decent human being.
I did not say I found “intolerance” to be subjective. I simply asked you if you are intolerant of Nazis who gas Jews. Or men who rape and murder little children? Or terrorists who slit the throats of flight attendants and fly jets full of screaming, terrorized psassengers into the World Trade Center. The point I am making is that “intolerance” is not automatically bad. Some things should not be tolerated.
Now finally, could you please refer me to the quote in which I said : “I hate (or do not like) Muslims”? Go ahead, they have good search engines on this site!
You must have a modicum of proof?