Yay, back again, AJ? I was hoping that you would be back. I see that you are maintaining your usual pose of outraged superiority, while playing word games about the singular or plural use of the word "redneck." Anything to muddy the water, confuse the issue, and hopefully slip away with your dignity intact, eh AJ?

Your premise was that, "Generalisations will always be wrong when you apply them to large populations. So your analogy with thinking is invalid."

You also say that you "accept" the Oxford dictionary definition of a "redneck" as "a politically reactionary working-class white person from the southern US."

"Rednecks" is the plural of "redneck." "Rednecks", therefore, are politically reactionary working class white PEOPLE from the southern US.

According to your above reasoning, it would be 'wrong" for anyone to use the term "redneck" (or "rednecks"),because the Oxford dictionary's definition is an inaccurate generalisation "which can not be applied to large populations." You do not need to be a working class person, or live in the Southern US, to be labelled a "redneck". I am a redneck, and I do not live in the Southern US. Yet you "accept" the Oxford definition, even though it is a classification "which includes people who do not fit that classification,"

Using the term "redneck" is also "wrong" (according to your logic) because even if it applied to white working people everywhere who work in the sun,(and therefore have "red necks") it implies that all white people with red necks have "reactionary views." "Redneck" is, once again, a generalised stereotype which is inaccurate. Yet, once again, you have admitted that you "accept" it.

Thirdly, it is a plainly racist term that defines people's attitudes and behaviour based upon the colour of their skin. If I did that, you would scream I am a racist, and shreik about how utterly wrong and evil racism is. But you do it and it doesn't even register on your befuddled brain.

You can not claim that generalisations and stereotyping "are invalid" when you accept generalised terms and stereotypes "applied to large populations" yourself.

AJ & LEGO,

Who gives a toss ? Get a room.

Joe

Joe,

I realise it must hurt to witness the drubbing of a person with whom you are politically aligned (yet somehow convince yourself you’re a Leftie), but no-one’s asking you to read this. I’m not going to stop having fun just because someone pokes their head in and says, “Who gives a toss?” We’ll be here for a few months yet purely because I get a devilish delight in watching such an unjustifiably arrogant person have his arse handed to him. If you insist on staying, how about you say something more constructive like, “It’s over LEGO. Give it up.” Fat chance of that, eh?

Really, LEGO?

<<I see that you are maintaining your usual pose of outraged superiority…>>

I thought the tone of my last response was quite calm.

<<…while playing word games about the singular or plural use of the word "redneck.">>

Really? How so?

<<Your premise was that, "Generalisations will always be wrong when you apply them to large populations.>>

Correct.

<<You also say that you "accept" the Oxford dictionary definition of a "redneck" as "a politically reactionary working-class white person from the southern US.">>

Correct.

<<"Rednecks" is the plural of "redneck." "Rednecks", therefore, are politically reactionary working class white PEOPLE from the southern US.>>

Correct again. You’re doing well. Keep it up.

<<According to your above reasoning, it would be 'wrong" for anyone to use the term "redneck" (or "rednecks"),because the Oxford dictionary's definition is an inaccurate generalisation "which can not be applied to large populations.">>

Oh, and you were doing so well for a moment there!

No, it wouldn’t be wrong, because a definition is different to a sterotype.

<<You do not need to be a working class person, or live in the Southern US, to be labelled a "redneck".>>

Correct. Anyone can label someone a redneck.

<<I am a redneck, and I do not live in the Southern US.>>

So you’re not a redneck according to the Oxford dictionary’s definition. Big deal.

Continued…

…Continued

<<Yet you "accept" the Oxford definition, even though it is a classification "which includes people who do not fit that classification,">>

Hey, I’m just going to label myself and ‘Asian’ now. Does that mean dictionaries are now wrong stereotyping because of my arbitrary decision? No.

<<Using the term "redneck" is also "wrong" (according to your logic) because even if it applied to white working people everywhere who work in the sun,(and therefore have "red necks") it implies that all white people with red necks have "reactionary views.">>

No, because if they don’t have politically reactionary views, then they’re probably not rednecks.

Get my logic right first, then we can discuss what is and is not according to it.

<<"Redneck" is, once again, a generalised stereotype which is inaccurate. >>

Nope, and I’ve just demonstrated that it isn’t. See above.

<<Thirdly, it is a plainly racist term that defines people's attitudes and behaviour based upon the colour of their skin.>>

Not if it's not describing everyone of that skin colour. Definitions just describe the usage of a word. If people started regularly applying the term 'redneck' to some other type of person as well, then the definition would eventually change to include them too.

<<You can not claim that generalisations and stereotyping "are invalid" when you accept generalised terms and stereotypes "applied to large populations" yourself.>>

“To be a stereotype, a definition would need to be attributed to a group of people based on some other unrelated factor or broadly defined categorisation.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#317651)

Not doin’ too well here are ya, ol’ mate?

A definition is different to a stereotype, AJ?

A definition is supposed to be a "definite" meaning, while a generalization is supposed to be a general meaning. . But the problem with making "definite" definitions, is that some words are abstract, relative, or generalised terms themselves. A definition can become a stereotype, or the definition can be defined by generalisations, which are stereotypes. One "definition" of a "generalisation" is "a stereotype."

If you accept the Oxford dictionary's definition of what a redneck is, and what a redneck believes, then that becomes your stereotype of what a redneck is, and what a redneck believes. Here is Hilgard’s definition of the word "stereotype" as it applies to the behaviour of groups of people.

Hilgard's Psychology page 289

"A stereotype is a set of inferences about the personality traits of a whole class of people."

Got that? The definition that you accepted from the Oxford dictionary conforms to what a behavioural psychologist calls a stereotype. The Oxford definition not only defined "rednecks" as white working class people from Southern USA, it even defined their personality traits as being "reactionary." But you claim that generalisations are always wrong when applied to "large populations", because not everybody conforms to that generalisation. I could point out that the Oxford definition of what constitutes a "redneck", or any other term based upon the attitudes or skin colour of "a large population", must also be wrong on the same grounds. If you think that it is "invalid" to stereotype " large populations" because some may not conform to the stereotype, you should also be saying that it is "invalid" to define any group of people for exactly the same reason.

"Definitions" are supposed to be "definite" descriptions of what a word means. What is "definite" about the Oxford dictionaries "definition" of "redneck"? It is making generalisations about the location, class, and beliefs of people with "red necks", and saying that they must be working class people who live in the Southern USA. That "definition" is not "definitely" accurate. It is therefore a generalisation, a stereotype.

LEGO,

It’s fascinating to watch you attempt a different angle each time you post. Yesterday it was plurals, today it’s 'definite definitions'.

<<A definition is different to a stereotype, AJ?>>

Correct.

Definition:
A statement of the exact meaning of a word, especially in a dictionary. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/definition)

Stereotype:
A widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/stereotype)

<<A definition is supposed to be a "definite" meaning, while a generalization is supposed to be a general meaning.>>

Incorrect.

Generalisation:
A general statement or concept obtained by inference from specific cases. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/generalization?q=generalisation)

<<If you accept the Oxford dictionary's definition of what a redneck is, and what a redneck believes, then that becomes your stereotype of what a redneck is, and what a redneck believes.>>

Incorrect.

"...if the definition doesn’t fit an individual, then the label automatically doesn’t apply” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#317651)

Rednecks are not a group of people defined in some other way. As I said pointed out earlier…

"To be a stereotype, a definition would need to be attributed to a group of people based on some other unrelated factor or broadly defined categorisation." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#317651)

You keep trying to dodge around this, but this is the nail in the coffin for your entire position.

Incidentally, the Oxford’s definition also doesn’t specify what a redneck believes.

<<The definition that you accepted from the Oxford dictionary conforms to what a behavioural psychologist calls a stereotype.>>

Only you’re once again forgetting that if an individual doesn’t fit the definition, then they’re not a member of that class.

<<But you claim that generalisations are always wrong when applied to "large populations", because not everybody conforms to that generalisation.>>

Correct.

<<I could point out that the Oxford definition of what constitutes a "redneck", or any other term based upon the attitudes or skin colour of "a large population", must also be wrong on the same grounds.>>

Only you’d be wrong. See above.

<<[Oxford’s definition] is making generalisations about the location, class, and beliefs of people with "red necks"…>>

Incorrect. A redneck is not just someone with a “red neck”.