Google Defines "Bigotry" as Right Wing

[Mac1958]

That is not true either. People like you want to group all assholes into the GOP, and that is not true. Yeah, one can argue the dems were racist first, blah, blah, blah...but the fact of the matter is that an asshole is an asshole and a pussy is a pussy, no matter what party they self affiliate with. There are plenty of black racists, democratic racists, liberal racists to go around. The left simply uses race to their advantage while the right does not and is called racist for it.

Precisely.

Bigots populate both ends of the spectrum. What cracks me up is the way they point the finger at the other using words like "fact".

They just don't see how transparent they are. Or maybe they're just deluded. One or the other.

.

Exactly, they spend so much time lying to themselves and accusing each other of being Anti-American, they have lost touch of reality.

I've become convinced that adherence to a partisan ideology ultimately warps perception, it distorts otherwise normal thought processes. That would explain why otherwise intelligent people just seem so certain about their positions, regardless of contrary information or opinion. They intellectually block out and/or discredit any opposing opinion as naturally as they breathe. They just won't let it in, therefore it doesn't exist.

It's possible that they really believe this stuff.

.

 

[Nutz]

Precisely.

Bigots populate both ends of the spectrum. What cracks me up is the way they point the finger at the other using words like "fact".

They just don't see how transparent they are. Or maybe they're just deluded. One or the other.

.

Exactly, they spend so much time lying to themselves and accusing each other of being Anti-American, they have lost touch of reality.

I've become convinced that adherence to a partisan ideology ultimately warps perception, it distorts otherwise normal thought processes. That would explain why otherwise intelligent people just seem so certain about their positions, regardless of contrary information or opinion. They intellectually block out and/or discredit any opposing opinion as naturally as they breathe. They just won't let it in, therefore it doesn't exist.

It's possible that they really believe this stuff.

.

I think it is more like they are co-dependent sheep who are incapable of self thought and can't form an opinion until they are told what opinion to have. Sheep, mindless sheep!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Regretfully, we have a lot of individual 'bigots' who try to represent the party by screaming and yelling the loudest and not enough true conservatives with the testicular fortitude to scream louder and put the racist scum in their place.

Understood.

But this nonetheless goes to the fact that bigotry manifests for the most part on the right.

That is not true either. People like you want to group all assholes into the GOP, and that is not true. Yeah, one can argue the dems were racist first, blah, blah, blah...but the fact of the matter is that an asshole is an asshole and a pussy is a pussy, no matter what party they self affiliate with. There are plenty of black racists, democratic racists, liberal racists to go around. The left simply uses race to their advantage while the right does not and is called racist for it.

Please read and comprehend the entire post:

‘…for the most part…’

This means that not all conservatives are bigots, but that bigotry and racism manifest for the most part among the right – conservative advocacy of denying same-sex couples access to marriage law, conservatives hostile to immigration, and conservatives seeking to enact ‘voter ID laws’ are examples of this bigotry; bigotry manifests in many forms, not just blatant racial epithets.

 

[PoliticalTorch]

I don't care about race, ethnicity, or religion.

It's the very last thing that enters my mind.

You folks?

That's number one.

Exactly! But when Republicans talk about race they literally know nothing. Because if they did, they would realize that when speaking about Hispanics or Latinos they would be speaking about members of the WHITE race! Yes, it's true. Hispanics and Latinos are members of the White race and have always been.

Never met a Cuban, eh?

You'd be surprised to see how many White Cubans there are with blond hair and blue eyes as are so many of the people in Mexico and other Spanish-speaking countries! Those who are in denial about that fact need to wake up and smell the coffee already!

 

[Kondor3]

It is right wing.

Seriously. You guys need to understand the meaning of things.

Conservatives, by nature, are bigoted and racist.

I nominate this one for USMB Crock-of-Shit Post of the Month.

 

[Mac1958]

Exactly, they spend so much time lying to themselves and accusing each other of being Anti-American, they have lost touch of reality.

I've become convinced that adherence to a partisan ideology ultimately warps perception, it distorts otherwise normal thought processes. That would explain why otherwise intelligent people just seem so certain about their positions, regardless of contrary information or opinion. They intellectually block out and/or discredit any opposing opinion as naturally as they breathe. They just won't let it in, therefore it doesn't exist.

It's possible that they really believe this stuff.

.

I think it is more like they are co-dependent sheep who are incapable of self thought and can't form an opinion until they are told what opinion to have. Sheep, mindless sheep!

I was trying to be diplomatic!



.

 

[Pogo]

Here's The Shocking Way Google Defines 'Bigotry' | The Daily Caller

-- which means the low-info illiterati get their way. Dumb-down delivers again.

I understand it's an example, but it's an example that can reasonably be taken as partisan. What do you feel would the reaction be if it were "left-wing bigotry," instead?

In my opinion they could have used a better example, and it seems they agree in this latest update.

Excuse me, the word in question is "bigotry", is it not?

"Bigotry" IS partisan, by definition. Yes they could have used an example that wasn't political, in an attempt to please everybody including those with martyr complexes like the OP.

But the point remains the OP is a bald faced lie. The sentence in question is not part of the definition, period. It's an example therein. It makes no point about politics or who is a bigot. It's an example, period. The purpose of an example is not to make a point of truth; it's literally one example of how the word might be used -- whether the example therein is valid, invalid or irrelevant.

The example, since nobody but me seems to have actually looked at the link, reads:
"the report reveals racism and right-wing bigotry"

--- what report? Are these wags disagreeing that that is what this mythical "report" reveals? No, because there is no such report. It's an example. It's hypothetical. It does not exist. And the example makes no statement about equivalence. To read it as "partisan" is as wacko as it would be to read the phrase "the black guy" as "racist". There's no value judgment present.

It's not the most illustrative Oxford could have used, but more importantly it's not defining the word as the lying OP claims.

What Google "agreed" to, if they did, is to bow down to the illiterati who would have us all dumbed down to this level of moronity. It would be enabling ignorance.

Sorry, I don't believe in enabling ignorance. Ever.

 

[Nutz]

Understood.

But this nonetheless goes to the fact that bigotry manifests for the most part on the right.

That is not true either. People like you want to group all assholes into the GOP, and that is not true. Yeah, one can argue the dems were racist first, blah, blah, blah...but the fact of the matter is that an asshole is an asshole and a pussy is a pussy, no matter what party they self affiliate with. There are plenty of black racists, democratic racists, liberal racists to go around. The left simply uses race to their advantage while the right does not and is called racist for it.

Please read and comprehend the entire post:

‘…for the most part…’

This means that not all conservatives are bigots, but that bigotry and racism manifest for the most part among the right – conservative advocacy of denying same-sex couples access to marriage law, conservatives hostile to immigration, and conservatives seeking to enact ‘voter ID laws’ are examples of this bigotry; bigotry manifests in many forms, not just blatant racial epithets.

It is true, bigotry manifests in many forms...but many times, those other forms are not bigotry at all. Just because people believe illegal immigrants need to be sent back...that doesn't make them racist.; nor does believing in traditional family values or preferring voters have an ID. I find none of those positions to be bigoted in any way shape or form...perhaps the reasoning behind one's position, but not the position itself.

 

[TheJedi]

It is right wing.

Seriously. You guys need to understand the meaning of things.

Conservatives, by nature, are bigoted and racist.

And democrats are today's pseudo-liberal conservatives. Bigotedly mired in 1960's think.

With regards to Sallow's comment, this is not fair to conservatives. While many right-wing pundits and politicians use thinly veiled racism as part of their platform, they are really only catering to the most extreme of their base. Most conservatives and republicans I know, are not racist in the least.

I think is also a good idea define racism as it relates to bias as these are two different things.

If we make a simple scale from 1-10 with 1 being racially prejudiced and bigoted and 10 being culturally biased meaning that 5 is completely neutral on matters of race and ethnicity, I think we would find that most people fall a little to the culturally biased side.

There is a clear difference between the two. 1's champion legislation that relegate specific groups to second class status. They are generally hateful towards those of particular groups and may even take action to harm or disenfranchise those outside of their perceived social utopia.

The 10's are not hateful per say but they do not trust people outside of their own ethnic group but at the same time they do not avoid having contact with other racial/ethnic groups. In sociology this is referred to as associational color in that you tend to keep to people of your own ilk but do not have any ill will towards others. People who speak a different primary language fit this category.

I think it is important to make this distinction before we start pointing fingers and screaming racist.

 

[Stephanie]

Here's The Shocking Way Google Defines 'Bigotry' | The Daily Caller

Leftists are such bigots...

No doubt there is bias there.

With regards to you last statement, can you please provide links that describe left-wing bigotry? I'd be curious to see what it looks like.

Really? You are incapable of Googling "Bigotry from the left?"

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...DMdnDaHiBn2M9edG2gisxAA&bvm=bv.68911936,d.aWw

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...CNUAm7vT65_vWkKGk_PftCw&bvm=bv.68911936,d.aWw

he like to a act like a big shot. go to his thread on fox news

 

[Pogo]

It is right wing.

Seriously. You guys need to understand the meaning of things.

Conservatives, by nature, are bigoted and racist.

I nominate this one for USMB Crock-of-Shit Post of the Month.

Seconded.

And I nominate this whole dishonest thread for COS TotM. This is even better than the Hank Aaron crock.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That is not true either. People like you want to group all assholes into the GOP, and that is not true. Yeah, one can argue the dems were racist first, blah, blah, blah...but the fact of the matter is that an asshole is an asshole and a pussy is a pussy, no matter what party they self affiliate with. There are plenty of black racists, democratic racists, liberal racists to go around. The left simply uses race to their advantage while the right does not and is called racist for it.

Precisely.

Bigots populate both ends of the spectrum. What cracks me up is the way they point the finger at the other using words like "fact".

They just don't see how transparent they are. Or maybe they're just deluded. One or the other.

.

Good point.

Actually not, as it misses the point.

The problem with bigotry among the right is we see conservatives, for the most part, seeking to codify that bigotry and racism.

One is at liberty to be a bigot and racist if he so desires, but he is not at liberty to use the power and authority of the state to disadvantage, in violation of the Constitution, those whom he is hostile to as a consequence of his bigotry and hatred.

 

[Mac1958]

It is right wing.

Seriously. You guys need to understand the meaning of things.

Conservatives, by nature, are bigoted and racist.

And democrats are today's pseudo-liberal conservatives. Bigotedly mired in 1960's think.

With regards to Sallow's comment, this is not fair to conservatives. While many right-wing pundits and politicians use thinly veiled racism as part of their platform, they are really only catering to the most extreme of their base. Most conservatives and republicans I know, are not racist in the least.

I think is also a good idea define racism as it relates to bias as these are two different things.

If we make a simple scale from 1-10 with 1 being racially prejudiced and bigoted and 10 being culturally biased meaning that 5 is completely neutral on matters of race and ethnicity, I think we would find that most people fall a little to the culturally biased side.

There is a clear difference between the two. 1's champion legislation that relegate specific groups to second class status. They are generally hateful towards those of particular groups and may even take action to harm or disenfranchise those outside of their perceived social utopia.

The 10's are not hateful per say but they do not trust people outside of their own ethnic group but at the same time they do not avoid having contact with other racial/ethnic groups. In sociology this is referred to as associational color in that you tend to keep to people of your own ilk but do not have any ill will towards others. People who speak a different primary language fit this category.

I think it is important to make this distinction before we start pointing fingers and screaming racist.

Those who depend on screaming "racist" to control the conversation will always take a thread about bigotry and conflate that word with racism. Sure, it's intellectually dishonest, but that's how they roll.

Bigotry is the intolerance of opinions and creeds that are different, and for either end of the spectrum to say the "other" side is "worse" is, well, standard partisan bullshit.

.

 

[Mac1958]

Precisely.

Bigots populate both ends of the spectrum. What cracks me up is the way they point the finger at the other using words like "fact".

They just don't see how transparent they are. Or maybe they're just deluded. One or the other.

.

Good point.

Actually not, as it misses the point.

The problem with bigotry among the right is we see conservatives, for the most part, seeking to codify that bigotry and racism.

One is at liberty to be a bigot and racist if he so desires, but he is not at liberty to use the power and authority of the state to disadvantage, in violation of the Constitution, those whom he is hostile to as a consequence of his bigotry and hatred.

Good grief. Both ends try to codify bigotry.

I swear, there are just zero mirrors in the homes of partisan ideologues.

Trying to communicate with you people is an abject waste of time.

Going through life with only your left eye open means you're half blind.

.

 

[Nutz]

My thing...if you are going to be a bigot or a racist...know the definition and embrace it instead of trying to hide it. This is why I think most racists and bigots are pussies. They don't have the guts to admit it in open public, even when they are anonymously posting on an internet forum, what they b truly believe and what they truly are.

 

[Wake]

Excuse me, the word in question is "bigotry", is it not?

"Bigotry" IS partisan, by definition. Yes they could have used an example that wasn't political, in an attempt to please everybody including those with martyr complexes like the OP.

But the point remains the OP is a bald faced lie. The sentence in question is not part of the definition, period. It's an example therein. It makes no point about politics or who is a bigot. It's an example, period. The purpose of an example is not to make a point of truth; it's literally one example of how the word might be used -- whether the example therein is valid, invalid or irrelevant.

The example, since nobody but me seems to have actually looked at the link, reads:
"the report reveals racism and right-wing bigotry"

--- what report? Are these wags disagreeing that that is what this mythical "report" reveals? No, because there is no such report. It's an example. It's hypothetical. It does not exist. And the example makes no statement about equivalence. To read it as "partisan" is as wacko as it would be to read the phrase "the black guy" as "racist". There's no value judgment present.

It's not the most illustrative Oxford could have used, but more importantly it's not defining the word as the lying OP claims.

What Google "agreed" to, if they did, is to bow down to the illiterati who would have us all dumbed down to this level of moronity. It would be enabling ignorance.

Sorry, I don't believe in enabling ignorance. Ever.

The word "bigotry," in my opinion, is a charged word that various political ideologues use as a tool.

Google should have used a fairer example, and I think Google acknowledge their mistake.

The OP is unabashedly inaccurate. Regarding the OP though, I'd be careful with calling people liars, because sometimes they're just flat-out wrong or literally that biased they believe it to be true. LockeJaw did make a generic, partisan statement devoid of qualification or forethought, but it doesn't necessarily mean he lied, because he may actually believe that nonsense. SOME Leftists are such bigots. Not all. Some. Same with some Rightists.

It's true that the word in question was used as an example, not the definition. Still, the damage in my humble opinion is just as dangerous and unfair. I think LockeJaw should acknowledge the minor discrepancy, if he hasn't already. The example was in poor taste, from my point of view. Imagine, Pogo, if the word was "theft," and used an African-American youth in the example. Imagine that, please.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Hey Mac!

What do you think of this?



Is it right wing PC?

 

[LockeJaw]

Bullshit, chickenshit lawyer, the bigotry you accuse me of is nature's bigotry...you just don't like that, so you try to shoot the messenger.

Bigotry is an illegimate tool to try to weild in politics if you want to have honest representation. On some levels, we are all bigots to a point.

The left is operating on a false premise 99.99% of the time because they think there is only one form of bigotry, right wing bigotry.

I won't deny it exists, but right wing ideas themselves are not racist. Left wing ideas are much more racist, because they use it as a cudgel to beat their opponents about the head, while the right advocates color blind politics, the only reason the right fights to defend the borders of our nation is because that's what you're supposed to do if you want to keep your nation. The left claims racism, it's disingenuos bullshit....they're internationalist who believe they're "global citizens". They can fuck off. They're opinions are invalid, we are a sovereign nation. When they want to start acting like the "honorable opposition" again, we can talk. Until then it's fuck you and all the filthy plans you have for our country.

Precisely.

Bigots populate both ends of the spectrum. What cracks me up is the way they point the finger at the other using words like "fact".

They just don't see how transparent they are. Or maybe they're just deluded. One or the other.

.

Good point.

Actually not, as it misses the point.

The problem with bigotry among the right is we see conservatives, for the most part, seeking to codify that bigotry and racism.

One is at liberty to be a bigot and racist if he so desires, but he is not at liberty to use the power and authority of the state to disadvantage, in violation of the Constitution, those whom he is hostile to as a consequence of his bigotry and hatred.

 

[Pogo]

Excuse me, the word in question is "bigotry", is it not?

"Bigotry" IS partisan, by definition. Yes they could have used an example that wasn't political, in an attempt to please everybody including those with martyr complexes like the OP.

But the point remains the OP is a bald faced lie. The sentence in question is not part of the definition, period. It's an example therein. It makes no point about politics or who is a bigot. It's an example, period. The purpose of an example is not to make a point of truth; it's literally one example of how the word might be used -- whether the example therein is valid, invalid or irrelevant.

The example, since nobody but me seems to have actually looked at the link, reads:
"the report reveals racism and right-wing bigotry"

--- what report? Are these wags disagreeing that that is what this mythical "report" reveals? No, because there is no such report. It's an example. It's hypothetical. It does not exist. And the example makes no statement about equivalence. To read it as "partisan" is as wacko as it would be to read the phrase "the black guy" as "racist". There's no value judgment present.

It's not the most illustrative Oxford could have used, but more importantly it's not defining the word as the lying OP claims.

What Google "agreed" to, if they did, is to bow down to the illiterati who would have us all dumbed down to this level of moronity. It would be enabling ignorance.

Sorry, I don't believe in enabling ignorance. Ever.

The word "bigotry," in my opinion, is a charged word that various political ideologues use as a tool.

Google should have used a fairer example, and I think Google acknowledge their mistake.

The OP is unabashedly inaccurate. Regarding the OP though, I'd be careful with calling people liars, because sometimes they're just flat-out wrong or literally that biased they believe it to be true. LockeJaw did make a generic, partisan statement devoid of qualification or forethought, but it doesn't necessarily mean he lied, because he may actually believe that nonsense. SOME Leftists are such bigots. Not all. Some. Same with some Rightists.

It's true that the word in question was used as an example, not the definition. Still, the damage in my humble opinion is just as dangerous and unfair. I think LockeJaw should acknowledge the minor discrepancy, if he hasn't already. The example was in poor taste, from my point of view. Imagine, Pogo, if the word was "theft," and used an African-American youth in the example. Imagine that, please.

Oh come off it. The OP made up a lie and created a thread out of it, period. And his blanket statement about "leftists" -- which has nothing to do with Google or Oxford anyway-- is simply a fallacy. That's not the lie -- the lie is in the title. You're enabling him too.

Thread title: "Google Defines "Bigotry" as Right Wing" is horseshit. Even the link doesn't say that -- the OP made it up.

And Google (Oxford) didn't make a "mistake" -- the sentence IS an example of the use of the word. Not a great one, simply because it doesn't make it as obvious as it could, but not a "mistake" either. There is no study -- it's hypothetical. And there is no equivalence made between "right-wing" and "bigotry". The former is merely an adjective -- it describes what kind of bigotry was in this imaginary report.

It does not say that right-winginess is bigotry. Let's cut the bullshit and quit pretending it says something it doesn't. The point isn't the adjective; it's the noun.

This fake PC-gone-wild martyr complex crapola gives me the urge to regurge
I mean of all the silly phony-ass CRAP to make a thread or an issue out of.... damn, get a grip already.

 

[boedicca]

What else would one expect from GOOG? It's one of the big enablers and profiteers of our surveillance serf state.

Hopenchange!