Except for quoting the OED in support of my usage. Does your “reasonable discussion” involve explaining how the OED is flawed but your proposed self-created, uncited definition is correct?
No. I certainly agree that a threat shows persecution, but the word can properly apply even in the absence of a threat.
Quit persecuting Budget Player!!!11
Bricker: The problem with your definition is that it fails the sniff test.
Hypothetical: There’s an online community in which 5% of the population is Red Sox fans, 5% are Yankees fans, and 90% don’t really care about that particular dispute. The Sox fans frequently and vigorously insult the Yankees, and vice versa, and the rest of the population treats them both perfectly fairly.
By your definition, both the sox and yankees fans are persecuted on that board. Which is utterly at odds with the way the word is usually used.
So your definition (a) is not the primary or sole definition in many/most dictionaries, and (b) easily leads to situations in which everyone is persecuted, or the definition is clearly and directly at odds with normal and “useful” usage.
Given that you’re (a) a very smart guy and (b) a lawyer who parses words professionally, it’s hard not to see that as a somewhat intentional choice of definitions on your part.
Yes! It’s called basic fucking understanding. Look, I don’t want to insult you (because I’m on thin ice with the mods anyways) but you are literally the only person in this thread who doesn’t understand what is meant by persecution. The singular, only person. Because you are insistent on using a definition which nobody considers reasonable. If you insist on using that definition, well, then I will continue to state that you have no interest in being a part of a rational discussion. Because YOU DON’T. Because the entirety of the posts you’ve made in this thread are completely worthless. It’s like going into a thread on evolution, defining “evolution” in Lamarckian terms, then expecting everyone to go by your definition because that’s what <insert dictionary here> says. Look, I’m sorry, but anyone with half a brain can see what you’re doing, and it’s incredibly annoying.
Yeah, stop persecuting me!
So my argument – on a board devoted to fighting ignorance, and which in this very thread congratulated itself on attracting evidence-based argument and offered that propensity up as a reason Christians get short shrift here…on that very board – my argument supported by a cite to the Oxford English Dictionary is bested by your argument that “everyone knows,” you’re right?
Yes, I can see how this tactic of mine might annoy you.
But for realsies, now: why is it that everyone knows it but actual, cite-able refutations of my proposed definition are so thin on the ground?
Maybe the “everyone” here is the same crowd that so gleefully participates in the casual put-downs, sneers, and disrespect towards Christianity that permeates the board, or, if they don’t, are part of the larger crowd that passively accept it when others do it…and thus don’t see it as persecution for that reason?
Hint: I can easily cite what’s meant by Lamarckism, and show it doesn’t happen, and that the word “evolution” found in the OED thus does not describe what Lamarck was saying. It’s easy.
Why do you imagine it’s so difficult to rebut what I am saying that you are reduced to “but…but…everyone knows!”
I don’t agree. I think that it would be perfectly understandable for both Sox and Yankees fans in that circumstances to say they were persecuted…not in the least at odds with how the word is used.
I agree it’s not the sole use of the word, but I disagree that it’s not the primary use. Both definitions I have cited have been the first – that is, the primary – from their respective sources.
Of course it’s intentional. I chose to chime in on the OP’s dismissal of Christian claims of persecution by pointing out a context in which such claims were defensible. If I wanted to describe it anew, there are better words. But nine of that changes the simple and clear fact that this particular word is accurately used in this particular instance, and rather than cite to dictionary rebuttals, both you and your immediate successor poster have fallen back on “but everyone knows…”
Well, the writers of a couple of resource works don’t. And a Christian who posts here and doesn’t appreciate the sly, smug, rude rain of contempt that is the fate of. Christianity here ALSO doesn’t.
So “everyone here knows” is not an effective rebuttal. Words have meaning. In a disagreement about a word’s meaning, the OED is a better source than the opinions of a board membership that has a vested interest in the answer coming out a particular way.
I haven’t read all of this thread, but as non-intuitive as it seems, the dictionary isn’t always the best way to find out how a word is used by the majority of people. And sometimes they just get it wrong. Also from the OED:
The original evolution of life? That doesn’t even make sense. Organisms from inorganic matter? No, actually biologists say the first organisms came from organic matter.
The Wikipedia entry gets it right:
From the Wikipedia entry on Persecution (bolding mine):
The reference used for the last sentence:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1941006
If anyone is interested in reading the paper in the above link, click “Download this Paper”.
This is simply wrong. The best source for the intended meaning of a word used in a particular context is the author. In this case, that means both John_Stamos’_Left_Ear and Chase Madar, who each used the word independently.
Their use of the word “persecuted” clearly does not match your dictionaries’ primary definitions. The conclusion to draw from this is **not **that the authors did not know what they meant by that word or misused it, but that they meant one of the other, perhaps somewhat less common, meanings of it - that which implied actual harm. This seems to be patently clear to everyone here except you.
Do you only ever use any word for the exact meaning of its primary dictionary definition? No, of course not.
That’s the thing though… we DON’T have a vested interest in anything, IF your definition is the better one. If persecuted means what you think it means, then OBVIOUSLY Christians are persecuted in America, because EVERYONE is persecuted. So either Christians claim to be persecuted because Christians ARE persecuted, but it’s a meaningless claim because the word has lost all importance, and we liberals don’t care about that claim because it’s vacuous; or Christians claim to be persecuted, and the word means what we think it means, but they are in fact lying/deluded.
By saying that we have a vested interest in whether or not Christians are persecuted, you’re tacitly admitting that “our” definition is the “correct” one, because otherwise why would we care?
Yep. Pretty much. See, here’s how this debate is structured. We have almost everyone in the conversation who is working from a definition of “persecution” which implies real harm and actually discriminating against a group in a meaningful way, and then we have you, arguing that a few harsh words are persecution. It doesn’t take a genius to understand that we are talking about completely different things. By all means, keep using your definition. But for those who have an interest in taking part in the discussion, you have nothing of value to contribute. You either stop trying to shoehorn in a definition which doesn’t even remotely fit the what we’re talking about, or you just leave the discussion because you obviously have no interest in contributing to it.
Let me make this as clear as humanly possible. If we’re using your definition of “persecution”, then I do not give a single shit if someone is being persecuted. Zero. None. Nada. Zip. I do not care. Because your definition of “persecution” is wide to the point where a few harsh words constitute persecution. I’m persecuting you right now. Watch how many fucks I give! Watch how many fucks literally anyone else gives! That’s the point I’m making.
Alternatively: if on a board dedicated to fighting ignorance you’re the ONLY ONE who doesn’t understand that you’re making a colossal equivocation fallacy…
I dunno why y’all are letting his pedantics rile you. He’s technically correct in his formation of a useless claim, like saying a thin person still has body fat, therefore they’re fat.
Because alcohol.
After 5 pages I think it’s pretty safe to say that overall claims by Christian conservatives that they’re being “victimized” have been demolished.
Wow, I started a shitstorm…
Read most of it all. I have to make one comment. Even if we did use the overly broad definition of the word Persecute (which I do not concede and using “persecute” in the rest of the post made my teeth hurt but for shits and giggles, let’s pretend that makes any sense at all), there still remains a difference:
In other countries, people are persecuted for being Christian - that is, for holding a faith (and expressing that faith) which is a minority view in a country/geographical location that is intolerant of Christianity by culture and/or a competing theocracy.
The simple act of going to church while otherwise leaving everyone else around them alone is enough to attract persecution in some places.
In this country, people are persecuted for being assholes - that is, for being an asshole (and expressing assholish beliefs) which, despite being a majority view in this country, means that they still cannot fathom sharing it with a minority view who do not subscribe to their particular brand of Christianity.
Sometimes these assholes wrap themselves up in their religion, but they are not being persecuted for their religious beliefs because there are a great many Christians in this country - devout church-going people who will proudly proclaim their love for Jesus Christ - who are not assholes who somehow do not face or feel any persecution. Funny how that works!
On this message board, simply being a Christian will not cause someone to receive persecution.
Being an asshole who tries to get bullshit taught as facts will get you persecuted here regardless of whether you are a Christian, a Muslim (many who also subscribe to a literal creation myth), or a Holocaust denier without any religious affiliation.
Being an asshole who says that someone wanting equal rights is the same as wanting “special rights” and that those equal rights somehow infringe on them even though they have nothing to do with it will get you persecuted here whether that motivation is religious with regard to marriage equality or just because you think that gay sex is icky.
There are a great many people - I’ll wager in this thread - who are Christian who do not get persecuted at all. They are still Christian. They are just not assholes.
I will concede that there is a minority contingent of evangelistic atheists who are more prone to gleefully put roll eye smilies at anyone who professes any kind of faith in any deity, but that’s the rub: Even if we find people trolling anyone who makes a simple profession of their faith or prayer or whatever with rude “you’re dumb to believe in the invisible sky god” (and we might see some cases of that here) - even those people are not persecuting others because they are Christian. They are persecuting them because they are religious!
While focusing on the term persecute, y’all forgot the whole thing about who was being persecuted and why.
I think that most people also forget that Christianity is hardly the “most populous religious group.” Christianity is an umbrella term for many factions of similar beliefs. But there are significant divisions, both in culture/behavior and belief, between an Amish community and the Mormon church.
The ones that claim persecution are often those people or groups that have the Christian variety of moral superiority. This is a human condition, though. We can easily find atheists that claim the moral high ground for “net believing in a wizard in the sky.”
I would agree that there are people in this country who are persecuted for being some variant of Christian, but it’s more like racism: Individuals hate some form (or all) of Christianity and act accordingly. I haven’t seen much evidence that we have a large pool of institutionalized persecution.
Wow.
This is an extremely valid point, and one I am forced to concede in toto.
You’re simply right, no ifs, ands, or buts. I was in error ascribing the behavior contentiously (but correctly!) called ‘persecution’ to an animus against Christians. It’s much more accurately described as an animus against religion.
It’s most visible against Christians, because, as in the outside world, Christians are the most numerous group of religious on the boards. But I’ve seen it directed against Orthodox Jewish practices like the eruv and Sabbath ovens, in just the same way.
My bad. You are right; I was wrong.
Then why don’t these people merely reject their faith, and quit going to church? It’s not the same as creed, color, or sexual orientation – religion is a choice, and while I’d never condone prejudice of any kind, there’s a very simple way to avoid harassment.
After all, I’ve done it (rejected prior faith, that is) – it’s not that difficult. Or do Christian minorities in other nations feel the same sense of self-hatred that American fundies do?
Do you consider conservative posters attack on liberalism to be persecution of liberals? I use this example because we are a majority here. I don’t feel persecuted myself. Asking that people stop making certain arguments because the targets of those arguments might feel persecuted does not help the free flow of ideas, does it?
I know you haven’t explicitly said that anyone should stop speaking, but since we all agree persecution is bad it isn’t a stretch to say that persecutors should stop.