is an artist a person who "hates" arts?
a pianist a person who "hates" pianos???
2007-02-01 14:56:55 · 15 answers · asked by whoknows 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Cultures & Groups ➔ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender
Technically, someone who is a racist is someone who acts on race, like discriminating on the basis of race, not necessarily someone who hates other races, although the current connotation is someone who hates certain races.
In terms of 'artist' and 'pianist', the -ist ending is just a morpheme marking someone who acts with the noun it is added to (someone who works with arts is an artist, someone who works with a piano is a pianist, and someone who deals in the races, is racist).
Words often spin out of control and get different meanings and connotations that make the examples you gave seem very wrong and counter-intuitive.
2007-02-01 15:09:46 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Actually, we're getting sloppy with our words. What we should be calling them is a bigot and not a racist. A racist simply believes there is a demonstrable difference between races. A bigot is someone virulently opposed to individuals of a different ethnic type. Obviously, the two concepts work well together and extremely few are one and not the other. Since racist is more of a "hot button" term than bigot, it has fallen into popular use.
2007-02-01 15:07:05 · answer #2 · answered by wanfuforever 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You've played on words and come up confused. An artist/pianist are people who work hard, train and specialise in their fields (specialist). You can be artistic but not an artist. You can play piano but not be a pianist. Different terminology.
2007-02-01 16:45:09 · answer #3 · answered by smile_girl 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
sturdy question. For that count, why is it outrageous while a white guy or woman calls a black guy or woman the N-be conscious yet not while a black guy or woman calls yet another black guy or woman the N-be conscious? If it incredibly is taken under consideration one of those racially offensive term - which it incredibly is - then how come they simply care while a guy or woman who's the "incorrect colour" makes use of it? seems kinda, I dunno, racist possibly? There are all forms of double standards like that in spite of the undeniable fact that. gay human beings can say all forms of issues approximately immediately human beings and no person incredibly cares. yet as quickly as a immediately guy or woman says something against a gay guy or woman, despite if it incredibly is a valid grievance, swiftly they're homophobic, they seem to be a bigot, they seem to be a hater, and so on. Or a non-non secular guy or woman can say that they don't think of something is sturdy, and no person minds, yet while a Christian says the same element, swiftly they're accused of being self-righteous and illiberal and judgmental. I hate double standards. the two a behaviour is sturdy and suitable, or it incredibly is incorrect. it incredibly is not authentic for one demographic and incorrect for yet another. that may not how authentic and incorrect artwork.
2016-10-16 10:43:32 · answer #4 · answered by tegtmeier 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
racist have 2 inter-meaning
1. One is fond and obsessed with his own race
2. One who prejudice other race than himself
So in both case it involve the subject "race". That wahy its called racist. However what's more common is the number 2 types. Either way its still racist.
2007-02-01 15:04:59 · answer #5 · answered by MasterEled 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I can explain...
When a person is described with a word ending with "ist" it means they put an emphasis on it.
An artist puts an emphasis on art.
A pianist puts an emphasis on the piano.
A racist puts an emphasis on race.
By putting that emphasis on race, they are stereotyping. This makes them a racist.
2007-02-01 15:06:04 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
im liking that train of thought
it also gos into
why did people long time ago know so much more then we do now? why havent we changed things to what out technology and education actually is ect along those lines
2007-02-01 15:21:01 · answer #7 · answered by jrmy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
now that u mention it, u got a point. that doesn't make sense. racist should describe a person that is 4 a particular race or races, not against them. i can't believe that we came up with such a stupid oxymoronic word.
2007-02-01 15:00:24 · answer #8 · answered by blewboy333 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
because logic is not the rule inlanguages and phrazes or anything for that matter on this Planet.
but you make a moot point
2007-02-01 15:01:34 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Lol....because that would make no sense what so ever!
Anti-racist would mean hating someone who is racist.
2007-02-01 15:00:41 · answer #10 · answered by Rocker Chick 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋