[ale] OT: Security code on Credit/Debit cards revisited

[George Carless]

Geoffrey (lists at serioustechnology.com) wrote the following on Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 12:22:13PM -0400:
> John G. Heim wrote:
> > It seems to me that linguists are moving away from the idea that some words 
> > are right and others wrong. The oldays when Sister Madalyn wrapped your 
> > knuckles for using 'bring' when you should have used 'take' are gone, 
> > replaced by a judgment  based on the words effect. Ie. You shouldn't use 
> > niggardly  because it gives offense and your meaning will be lost.
> > 
> > So the real question would be whether the use of the word "racist" 
> > effectively transmitted the intended  meaning. I would say it did and 
> > therefore it was correct.
> 
> I will submit that the original definition of racist was the belief that 
> one race was superior to another.  The fact that the definition of the 
> word has been diluted by the media and the world is sad.  Prejudice and 
> racist do not mean the same thing.  As it stands, some people think they do.

Geoffrey, this is nonsense. Racist does not *merely* mean "believing that one 
race was superior to another," and _even if it did_ that definition would have 
applied here: if we start with the (perfectly reasonable) assumption that 
stealing a credit card is morally wrong, and from there assert that certain 
races are more likely to engage in such behaviour (which is PRECISELY what the 
OP indicated), then the logical conclusion is that these races are morally 
inferior to others.

Furthermore, I personally feel that this kind of "it's not racism, it's 
prejudice" is very often used as a means of parsing, of claiming that an 
attitude is not a "bad" one--"hey, I'm not _racist_, I'm merely prejudicial.  
It's not that I think blacks are all criminals, it's just that based on my 
experience I can pre-judge blacks to be predisposed to crime."
 
> As for a previous reference of returning back in time when the word did 
> not exist, that's not a valid argument for changing the meaning of a 
> word to start with.  The word was created because of a need, it's 
> meaning had been diluted by politics.

Is it politics? Or is it the media? 
> 
> If I say I'm smarter then you because you're mexican, that's racist.
> 
> If I say I don't trust you because you're mexican, that's prejudice.
> 
> If I say I don't trust you because you're mexican, and I've been ripped 
> off by every mexican I've ever done business with, that's neither racist 
> or prejudice.

What utter rot. I you say you don't trust me because I'm mexican, that's because you're 
a racist asshole. If you say you don't trust me because I'm a mexican and you've been 
ripped off by every mexican you've ever done business with, it's because you're a stupid 
racist asshole who needs to exercise better judgement in your business dealings.  These 
are examples; I'm not saying you're a racist asshole. Probably.

George