Sup, I'm not sure whether this is the 100% correct board to post this stuff, but /lit/'s my homeboard and I figure that we probably have the largest population of people actively using dictionaries.
Anyway, I was discussing some political stuff earlier today, and I ended up searching for the dictionary definition of the word "bigot". I went to Meriam-Webster and saw pic related. Now, I pretty clearly remember that no that long ago, the definition there was something along the lines of: "A person not willing to entertain other people's ideas; a hypocrite."
Is my memory fucking with me, /lit/? I've a couple of studies on the phenomena of false memories earlier this year, so I wouldn't be all that shocked. Still, I believe can very well visually recall the earlier definition. Is there maybe something to the meme of American liberals changing dictionaries?
How about opening up a dictionary?
>>7978283
Don't have one at home, might pick it up in a library tomorrow.
Okay, no idea if that word has changed in recent years but,
Do you know how a God damn dictionary works? It doesn't prescribe the meaning of words, it reflects usage. It isn't a conspiracy by some word-use deciding council.
Jesus.
>>7978270
Bryan Garner would know
>>7978290
Perhaps you haven't been on /lit/ long enough:
>http://wilson.med.harvard.edu/nb204/AuthorityAndAmericanUsage.pdf
>>7978290
Well, yeah, I get that. On the other hand, it seems rather politically convenient to change the definition of the word right at this moment in time, when it is being used as ad hominem.
Also, it now has the same definition as prejudice (bigotry). Seems kinda redundant, and also gets rid off a term (if I am correct) that would suggest there is more than one objective political position and that one can/should step outside of his own ideology in a political debate.
I just looked up "bigoted" in my kindle version of the Oxford Dictionary of English
bigoted
adj. having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others.
sorry op, but apaprently it's pretty much meant the same thing since the 16th centry.
Origin
late 16th century (denoting a superstitious religious hypocrite): from French, of unknown origin.
>>7978335
usually when people call other people bigots they're not arguing ad hominem but just name calling
you're right about the definition thing though I think
>>7978372
My point is that I remember the original meaning being defined by the non-acceptance of other ideas; I don't remember any of this "disliking other people or groups of people" stuff
>>7978375
it\s because of the Jewish cultural marxist plot intended to breed out whiteness,.
Take the redpill already
>>7978375
its not just non-acceptance, it's intolerance. it's not the same as prejudice - prejudice can be applied in a much milder context. literally everyone has prejudices, but not everyone is bigoted. you can also be prejudice without being bigoted. it's not interchangeable, as an anon in this thread stated, even if you apply the 'new' definition.
but yeah, the pic in your op is retarded and you should switch to a different dictionary. quick way is to literally just google "define [word]" and it'll come up, usually with a footnote regarding origin/etymology which can be handy
>>7978381
Well, I'm not totally clueless to the /pol/ ideology, and I did include it in my very broad set of possibilities. But I'm remaining agnostic in that sense.
I don't view bigot as a pejorative, of course I won't accept other people and ideas if I dislike them.
Like the word 'tolerance' it annoys me as both coax and guilt you in to accepting things that run counter to your view of the world.
It's a permeable insult to me, and is disregarded instantly.
>>7978387
Come to /pol/ and me and my white brethren will tell you facts from fictions
>>7978270
I have always heard that dictionary definition of 'bigot' (IE, one who hates other groups)
Your definition is pretty close in terms of "strongly and unfairly dislike other... ideas", though the association with 'hypocrite' is offbase
>>7978436
Funnily enough I specifically remember learning the word in elementary school probably around a decade ago, because I recall pronouncing it 'by-got' and being corrected as well as told the definition was 'a hateful person' like a racist.
I have access to the full OED through my uni though and their definition(s) are actually a lot closer to yours. Here you go:
(discounting the obsolete definition one anon already mentioned)
> A person considered to adhere unreasonably or obstinately to a particular religious belief, practice, etc.
>In extended use: a fanatical adherent or believer; a person characterized by obstinate, intolerant, or strongly partisan beliefs.
Bigoted:
>Characterized by bigotry; obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, faction, etc.; intolerant towards others, their beliefs, practices, etc.
>Obstinately or unreasonably attached to a faction, cause, belief, etc.
Bigotry:
>The quality or condition of a bigot; obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, practice, faction, etc.; intolerance, prejudice.
Looking at these definitions, maybe you aren't wrong about MW changing their definition. Could someone use a web archive to look back a few years?
So if I'm a white nationalist who values the lives of people who look similar to me over others, then automatically I'm always-already a 'bigot'?
Liberal logic everyone
>>7978414
Nah man, it's good, I'm either insane or one red-pill level above you.
>>7978335
>Also, it now has the same definition as prejudice (bigotry)
As long as I've been alive that's been the definition, though it isn't exactly the same.
>>7978414
>/pol/
>/white/
