Hacker News Reader

Comment by nabla9 | Hacker News Reader

The problem comes when words describe an idea or concept. Usually, words lose specificity and become more generic.

Consider the word racist, "the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance and can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another." Many people who say "I'm not a racist" are correct. They can be xenophobes and/or bigots.

There is no specific English word to describe bona fide racists from David Duke to Charles Murray, without including xenophobes, bigots, and people with strong unconscious prejudge.

View on HN

I agree, it's a big loss to discourse when a useful word loses its specificity and there's nothing else to take its place. That's why I am one of those who would to fight to keep the "correct" meaning of "disinterested".

I think it's important to distinguish between words like that and other entries in the article's list that are just trite figures of speech, and it won't hurt anyone if they shift meanings or even fall out of use altogether.

There’s no word to describe David Duke & Charles Murray without including xenophobes and bigots, because David Duke & Charles Murray are xenophobes and bigots.

Of course there can be words to describe subsets of larger groups.

They’re also people; is there no word to describe them without including all people?

There is no word to describe Jack Daniel's, and Laphroaig without including all other alcoholic drinks because Jack Daniel's, and Laphroaig are alcoholic drinks.

"racists from David Duke to Charles Murray"

I disagree that the absence of a word to link these two ideologically is a fault of the English language.

> bona fide racists from David Duke to Charles Murray, without including xenophobes, bigots, and people with strong unconscious prejudge.

Because the primary thing that diatinguishes them is eloquence when they talk and iq. The rest is largely the same.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com