Google Defines "Bigotry" as Right Wing

[bedowin62]

comical seeing left-wing nutjobs whine that others are have a martyr complex; the Left cant survive if they aren't playing the victim

 

[boedicca]

Are Republicans still trying to insist their party being 90% white has nothing to do with race? Next they will be telling us their voter suppression wasn't racially motivated or there was nothing racial at their convention when they threw peanuts at a black CNN camerawomen and said this is how we feed the animals or when they called Obama Tar Baby and Boy and said the Obama's, wife included", were "uppity". None of that had anything to do with race. Sure it didn't.

Oh it has something to do with race. It has to do with how conservative minorities are attacked and vilified by the Left. There is enormous pressure to stay on the Prog Plantation.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

just awful , but they are run by a bunch of by un-Amercian leftist so this should be no surprise

time to stop using google

Read the article, the sentence comes verbatim from the Oxford Dictionary...

 

[Nutz]

comical seeing left-wing nutjobs whine that others are have a martyr complex; the Left cant survive if they aren't playing the victim

Neither can the Right survive - if they aren't playing victim - claiming reverse discrimination and crying about Affirmative Action everyday (as they point their fingers at the left screaming racist as loud as they can).

It works both ways. I always thought the right was better than that...I was wrong. It seems as if they are the worst.

 

[Wake]

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.

I think it's a bit hasty to assume he was deliberately lying. From my own experience I've seen partisans read an issue like this, then misunderstand it and write up a thread more in line with their own personal biases. It may very well be that LJ is fabricating, or exaggerating. Instead of assuming the worst I reckon it'd be better to ask him some tough questions to draw about better responses in order to read and understand his intentions better.

His title is indeed inaccurate, and by no means am I enabling him to do anything. If I weren't preoccupied with more important things I'd ask Mr. LockeJaw a few questions.

How exactly does your comment that Google made no mistake reconcile with Google lately stating that the example was in poor taste? The folks at Google themselves seem to disagree with you on the appropriateness of the example. Frankly I feel that your worldview is a bit further towards the left on the spectrum than mine, which makes me feel that you may, indeed, not be considering this issue with the utmost fairness or objectivity. Again, that is just my personal observation, and it's not meant to anger or provoke negative reactions.

They used "right-wing" as an example for "bigotry." I note that you did not respond to my valid point over what it would be like if they used "African-American Youth" as an example for "theft." Or, to make it simpler, imagine if they used "left-wing" as an example for naivete. What then?

In order to avoid issues like this, I would imagine it'd be best if Google didn't use these sorts of examples. Google itself agrees.

 

[RKMBrown]

The sentence says. "the report reveals racism and right-wing bigotry"

Yeah that's painting right wing as racist bigots.

 

[Peach]

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.

Agreed, if someone seeks to codify any bigotry I will be at the front of line to denounce same, but blinders on judgement ignores actions so seeking.

 

[Pogo]

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.

I think it's a bit hasty to assume he was deliberately lying. From my own experience I've seen partisans read an issue like this, then misunderstand it and write up a thread more in line with their own personal biases. It may very well be that LJ is fabricating, or exaggerating. Instead of assuming the worst I reckon it'd be better to ask him some tough questions to draw about better responses in order to read and understand his intentions better.

His title is indeed inaccurate, and by no means am I enabling him to do anything. If I weren't preoccupied with more important things I'd ask Mr. LockeJaw a few questions.

How exactly does your comment that Google made no mistake reconcile with Google lately stating that the example was in poor taste? The folks at Google themselves seem to disagree with you on the appropriateness of the example. Frankly I feel that your worldview is a bit further towards the left on the spectrum than mine, which makes me feel that you may, indeed, not be considering this issue with the utmost fairness or objectivity. Again, that is just my personal observation, and it's not meant to anger or provoke negative reactions.

They used "right-wing" as an example for "bigotry." I note that you did not respond to my valid point over what it would be like if they used "African-American Youth" as an example for "theft." Or, to make it simpler, imagine if they used "left-wing" as an example for naivete. What then?

In order to avoid issues like this, I would imagine it'd be best if Google didn't use these sorts of examples. Google itself agrees.

My issue here has nothing to do with ideology -- indeed there is no ideology stated in the page in question. My issue is with how the English language works and people pointing to a page with a straight face claiming the words say something that they do not say at all, apparently for no other purpose than inventing an issue out of thin air. What we have here is Ozzie Guillen all over again. Let me know if I need to explain that reference.

What Google talks about doing here is bowing to PC pressure, no different than somebody demanding that a TV show actor be fired for something they didn't even say in the first place. In caving to such contrived bullshit hysteria, it's taking the path of least resistance --- instead of actually growing a pair and pointing out that the complaint made is contrived bullshit. It costs less to cave than to take a stand for honesty. And it sends the message that you can control the dialogue if you make enough noise --- even if you use absolute bullshit to do it. It's the last phrase that is my issue.

And no they do not "use 'right-wing' as an example" of bigotry. Am I the only one who understands what an adjective is?

Here's an example used by Merriam-Webster in its definition of bigot:

“It's scandalous,” he said, in the tones once used by Colonel Blimp, Britain's best-loved bigot, who adorned the pages of the Evening Standard throughout the 1930s. —Nicholas Fraser, Harper's, September 1996

Shall we infer from the adjective that bigots are "best-loved"? Shall we infer that bigots are British? Think about it.

 

[Pogo]

The sentence says. "the report reveals racism and right-wing bigotry"

Yeah that's painting right wing as racist bigots.

Explain -- HOW does it do that? And how do you connect "racism" -- which comes before the conjunction?

What if it had said "left-wing bigotry"? What if it had said "religious bigotry"? What if it had said "homophobic bigotry"? You do understand what adjectives are, do you not?

The fact remains: the entire sentence is a usage example -- it's not part of the definition of the word.

 

[Unkotare]

But when Republicans talk about race they literally know nothing.

democrats know all about race. The entire shameful history of their party is an endless litany of using race as the basis of enslavement, war, brutality, murder, intimidation, degradation, illegal experimentation, internment in concentration camps, oppression, and enervating dependency.

Oh yeah, democrats know all about 'race' and what to do with it.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Don't know why anyone would be shocked about this. Google is ran by leftists.
I remember a while back if you Googled "failure" Bush was the first thing that popped up.

 

[RKMBrown]

The sentence says. "the report reveals racism and right-wing bigotry"

Yeah that's painting right wing as racist bigots.

Explain -- HOW does it do that? And how do you connect "racism" -- which comes before the conjunction?

What if it had said "left-wing bigotry"? What if it had said "religious bigotry"? What if it had said "homophobic bigotry"? You do understand what adjectives are, do you not?

The fact remains: the entire sentence is a usage example -- it's not part of the definition of the word.

The purpose of the sentence is to show an example of bigotry, the sentence topic is what the report shows, the thing the report shows is quoted as racism and right wing bigotry. Why would there be a report on two completely different subjects dumb ass? The implication is racism is an example of right wing bigotry and that is the purpose of the report, clearly a report by the msm. Or are you trying to imply that the right wing are bigots against racism and that was the point of the report? If so why didn't they say right wing bigotry against racism? Conjunction my ass it was a list.


For example the police report documented murder and right wing gun hypocrisy. The point implied is right wing is the culprit of the former. There are no other people mentioned in the GD SENTENCE ARE THERE?

 

[Unkotare]

The sentence says. "the report reveals racism and right-wing bigotry"

Yeah that's painting right wing as racist bigots.

Explain -- HOW does it do that? And how do you connect "racism" -- which comes before the conjunction?

What if it had said "left-wing bigotry"? What if it had said "religious bigotry"? What if it had said "homophobic bigotry"? You do understand what adjectives are, do you not?

The fact remains: the entire sentence is a usage example -- it's not part of the definition of the word.

The purpose of the sentence is to show an example of bigotry, the sentence topic is what the report shows, the thing the report shows is quoted as racism and right wing bigotry. Why would there be a report on two completely different subjects dumb ass? The implication is racism is an example of right wing bigotry and that is the purpose of the report, clearly a report by the msm. Or are you trying to imply that the right wing are bigots against racism and that was the point of the report? If so why didn't they say right wing bigotry against racism?

He is trying to use semantics and syntax to dance around the obvious intent of the writer. Popo is inherently dishonest and he has a rather weak understanding of the English language.

 

[Nutz]

Don't know why anyone would be shocked about this. Google is ran by leftists.
I remember a while back if you Googled "failure" Bush was the first thing that popped up.

LOL, I remember that. But I thought it was the green aliens...no the evil Jews who ran Google.

 

[blackhawk]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...=g647GdLlwSqRFJj622X8fw&bvm=bv.68911936,d.b2U

Bigotry - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=11&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CGwQFjAK&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thefreedictionary.com%2Fbigotry&ei=xUCeU_b9I8jL8wH3wIDgAg&usg=AFQjCNF6hgT_4uiKPr0OwBLTT8-w6f6nxw&sig2=11U66H6OyAXWnmWrJz9xBQ

 

[Pogo]

Hee hee, this is great, reminiscent of the knock-down drag-out editorial meetings at the paper... nothing like grammar to incite the passions....

Let's go -

The sentence says. "the report reveals racism and right-wing bigotry"

Yeah that's painting right wing as racist bigots.

Explain -- HOW does it do that? And how do you connect "racism" -- which comes before the conjunction?

What if it had said "left-wing bigotry"? What if it had said "religious bigotry"? What if it had said "homophobic bigotry"? You do understand what adjectives are, do you not?

The fact remains: the entire sentence is a usage example -- it's not part of the definition of the word.

The purpose of the sentence is to show an example of bigotry, the sentence topic is what the report shows, the thing the report shows is quoted as racism and right wing bigotry. Why would there be a report on two completely different subjects dumb ass?

So you not only don't understand what an adjective is -- you don't understand what a conjunction is either??

A conjunction connects two different ideas; it does not equate them.

"Hearts and flowers" does not mean that flowers are hearts.
"Hither and yon" does not mean yon is hither. Indeed they are opposites.

The inclusion of both concepts in the example is completely superfluous. It could have said "the report was full of racist bigotry" and worked just as well. What's before and after the conjunction are not the same things; if they were, the combination would be redundant. It could have said "the report was full of poems and right-wing bigotry". That wouldn't make right-wingness "poetic".

"In tomorrow's weather we expect wind and rain" -- does not mean wind and rain are in any way related to each other. It does not mean any time you have rain you must have wind. And it makes no value judgment about whether wind or rain is a good or bad thing.

The implication is racism is an example of right wing bigotry and that is the purpose of the report, clearly a report by the msm.

This just gets better and better. Where do you actually SEE this "report"? How do you know it's from the "msm"? I can't even see a damn report. Do you understand the concept of "imaginary"?

Or are you trying to imply that the right wing are bigots against racism and that was the point of the report? If so why didn't they say right wing bigotry against racism?

There. Is. No. Value Judgment. Made. About. Right. Wing. Anything.

There is a statement made about what was in some imaginary report.
What was in the report?
Two things: (one) racism; and (2) bigotry.
What kind of racism? We don't know. Doesn't say.
What kind of bigotry? "right-wing".

It's an adjective modifying "bigotry". It simply expands on the description.

What does "right-wing bigotry" mean? Again, we don't know, it's not defined, nor does it need to be, because this is an example usage of bigotry -- not "right-wing".

Had it left racism by itself it might have implied that bigotry is the same thing as racism, therefore they insert another kind of bigotry, even though it's a poor example.

They could have said for instance, "the report was full of racism and other bigotry" or "the report was full of racism and anti-homosexual bigotry". Would have made the same point. The first and second element are not related to each other; if anything they imply a diversity: that bigotry means more than one thing. IMHO that's why there are two elements present: to clarify that bigotry is a broader term than just the first term, in the instant case "racism".

You cannot infer equation between two nouns just because they co-exist in the same sentence. Now if this example had said, "the report was full of racism and other right-wing bigotry" you'd have a gripe, because then you'd have at least an implied correlation. But that's not what it says. Perhaps it's what the OP likes to pretend it says but it isn't.

 

[RKMBrown]

Hee hee, this is great, reminiscent of the knock-down drag-out editorial meetings at the paper... nothing like grammar to incite the passions....

Let's go -

Explain -- HOW does it do that? And how do you connect "racism" -- which comes before the conjunction?

What if it had said "left-wing bigotry"? What if it had said "religious bigotry"? What if it had said "homophobic bigotry"? You do understand what adjectives are, do you not?

The fact remains: the entire sentence is a usage example -- it's not part of the definition of the word.

The purpose of the sentence is to show an example of bigotry, the sentence topic is what the report shows, the thing the report shows is quoted as racism and right wing bigotry. Why would there be a report on two completely different subjects dumb ass?

So you not only don't understand what an adjective is -- you don't understand what a conjunction is either??

A conjunction connects two different ideas; it does not equate them.

"Hearts and flowers" does not mean that flowers are hearts.
"Hither and yon" does not mean yon is hither. Indeed they are opposites.

The inclusion of both concepts in the example is completely superfluous. It could have said "the report was full of racist bigotry" and worked just as well. What's before and after the conjunction are not the same things; if they were, the combination would be redundant. It could have said "the report was full of poems and right-wing bigotry". That wouldn't make right-wingness "poetic".

"In tomorrow's weather we expect wind and rain" -- does not mean wind and rain are in any way related to each other. It does not mean any time you have rain you must have wind. And it makes no value judgment about whether wind or rain is a good or bad thing.

The implication is racism is an example of right wing bigotry and that is the purpose of the report, clearly a report by the msm.

This just gets better and better. Where do you actually SEE this "report"? How do you know it's from the "msm"? I can't even see a damn report. Do you understand the concept of "imaginary"?

Or are you trying to imply that the right wing are bigots against racism and that was the point of the report? If so why didn't they say right wing bigotry against racism?

There. Is. No. Value Judgment. Made. About. Right. Wing. Anything.

There is a statement made about what was in some imaginary report.
What was in the report?
Two things: (one) racism; and (2) bigotry.
What kind of racism? We don't know. Doesn't say.
What kind of bigotry? "right-wing".

It's an adjective modifying "bigotry". It simply expands on the description.

What does "right-wing bigotry" mean? Again, we don't know, it's not defined, nor does it need to be, because this is an example usage of bigotry -- not "right-wing".

Had it left racism by itself it might have implied that bigotry is the same thing as racism, therefore they insert another kind of bigotry, even though it's a poor example.

They could have said for instance, "the report was full of racism and other bigotry" or "the report was full of racism and anti-homosexual bigotry". Would have made the same point. The first and second element are not related to each other; if anything they imply a diversity: that bigotry means more than one thing. IMHO that's why there are two elements present: to clarify that bigotry is a broader term than just the first term, in the instant case "racism".

You cannot infer equation between two nouns just because they co-exist in the same sentence. Now if this example had said, "the report was full of racism and other right-wing bigotry" you'd have a gripe, because then you'd have at least an implied correlation. But that's not what it says. Perhaps it's what the OP likes to pretend it says but it isn't.

Oh I see what you are saying:

Example of *Bestiality:

"a report about pogo's first date and people who are into bestiality"

That would be two completely different topics the first not even related to the other even though they are both in the report and in the same sentence. Clearly every time you see the word and you should assume the writer meant to add a period and end the paragraph and start a new topic entirely. Yeah that's what AND means.

ROFL what a dumb ass lying piece of shit liberals are, and you don't know what you are talking about, and your first date wasn't with a human was it?

 

[Pogo]

Hee hee, this is great, reminiscent of the knock-down drag-out editorial meetings at the paper... nothing like grammar to incite the passions....

Let's go -

The purpose of the sentence is to show an example of bigotry, the sentence topic is what the report shows, the thing the report shows is quoted as racism and right wing bigotry. Why would there be a report on two completely different subjects dumb ass?

So you not only don't understand what an adjective is -- you don't understand what a conjunction is either??

A conjunction connects two different ideas; it does not equate them.

"Hearts and flowers" does not mean that flowers are hearts.
"Hither and yon" does not mean yon is hither. Indeed they are opposites.

The inclusion of both concepts in the example is completely superfluous. It could have said "the report was full of racist bigotry" and worked just as well. What's before and after the conjunction are not the same things; if they were, the combination would be redundant. It could have said "the report was full of poems and right-wing bigotry". That wouldn't make right-wingness "poetic".

"In tomorrow's weather we expect wind and rain" -- does not mean wind and rain are in any way related to each other. It does not mean any time you have rain you must have wind. And it makes no value judgment about whether wind or rain is a good or bad thing.



This just gets better and better. Where do you actually SEE this "report"? How do you know it's from the "msm"? I can't even see a damn report. Do you understand the concept of "imaginary"?

Or are you trying to imply that the right wing are bigots against racism and that was the point of the report? If so why didn't they say right wing bigotry against racism?

There. Is. No. Value Judgment. Made. About. Right. Wing. Anything.

There is a statement made about what was in some imaginary report.
What was in the report?
Two things: (one) racism; and (2) bigotry.
What kind of racism? We don't know. Doesn't say.
What kind of bigotry? "right-wing".

It's an adjective modifying "bigotry". It simply expands on the description.

What does "right-wing bigotry" mean? Again, we don't know, it's not defined, nor does it need to be, because this is an example usage of bigotry -- not "right-wing".

Had it left racism by itself it might have implied that bigotry is the same thing as racism, therefore they insert another kind of bigotry, even though it's a poor example.

They could have said for instance, "the report was full of racism and other bigotry" or "the report was full of racism and anti-homosexual bigotry". Would have made the same point. The first and second element are not related to each other; if anything they imply a diversity: that bigotry means more than one thing. IMHO that's why there are two elements present: to clarify that bigotry is a broader term than just the first term, in the instant case "racism".

You cannot infer equation between two nouns just because they co-exist in the same sentence. Now if this example had said, "the report was full of racism and other right-wing bigotry" you'd have a gripe, because then you'd have at least an implied correlation. But that's not what it says. Perhaps it's what the OP likes to pretend it says but it isn't.

Oh I see what you are saying:

Example of *Bestiality:

"a report about pogo's first date and people who are into bestiality"

That would be two completely different topics the first not even related to the other even though they are both in the report and in the same sentence. Clearly every time you see the word and you should assume the writer meant to add a period and end the paragraph and start a new topic entirely. Yeah that's what AND means.

ROFL what a dumb ass lying piece of shit liberals are, and you don't know what you are talking about, and your first date wasn't with a human was it?

Bestiality huh? Seeya, Pinko. Read the site rules while you're gone.

The plot sickens... apparently this Betsy Rothstein who came up with this cockamamie reading comprehension handicap has a long LONG history of playing fast and loose with the facts (or more commonly ignoring them altogether and making shit up); before the Daily Caller she was with a gossip rag called "Fishbowl DC" where she apparently had to resign when a libel suit was brought for defamation she wrote continually about a local publicist. Check this out. And this.

In other words --- a troll with a blog site instead of a message board. Think Vigilante with a skirt.

The lawsuit itself is here. It was settled last fall. The parties apparently aren't allowed to comment on the terms but it was the same time that Rothstein and Fishbowl parted company.

As always -- "consider the source".

And another one bites the dust.

 

[OnePercenter]

Sounds right!

 

[bedowin62]

Sounds right!

the Middle class has it much better when Republicans ran things

the rich are getting RICHER FASTER under Obama; than they did under Bush

the poor are getting POORER FASTER than they were under Republicans

libs are losers who lie to themselves