Sol, there's a difference between an assumption and an educated guess. Speaking of which, I notice you only deny what you have and haven't said, not what you are or aren't. Desperately clinging to the precious blanket of anonymity is a sure sign of a novelty act with an axe to grind.

Speaking of differences, there's more to differentiation than race, so no, Obama's comment did not use or imply the word bigotry. Nice no so intelligent try though. See, nearly all wedge issues play on antipathy for 'otherness' in some way- whether its city elites against down home wholesome small towners, or abortionists against religious types or any other of myriad numerous distinctions- of course, including race- that works in a political context. Whether you consider noting that vile or condescending, doesn't change its veracity, which is very much not in doubt.

There, if you're as sincere as you'd have us believe, and f course not a small-town hick, you've learned something today. Good for you.

Thanks for popping in and inveighing on our informative discussion. Maybe you could elaborate and tell me what point it is I missed and when I missed it. As it is, it sounds a little like you're spouting from an orifice south of the border.

Actually, what I was asking was for some explanation of how you came to say that I had missed the point- that Barack 'shot himself in the foot'. Seeing as I never said he hadn't it just seemed a rather peculiar thing to discharge onto the thread. Anytime your ready on that score, I'll be here snowflake.

Antipathy toward otherness is not bigotry, fyi, as otherness is broader than a demographic. It is any division that can be mobilized by pathos- I listed some, but other even more neutral varietals apply, including those that apply to class, profession and geography. All of this is not considering the fact that 'hatred' and 'antipathy' are hardly synonyms- would you argue that one cannot be against gay marriage without being a bigot?- or that in the vernacular bigotry and racism are synonyms, and that this is clearly the context in which it was meant by Sol.

I enjoyed that and your other rewrite of the dictionary- have put in a call to Oxford on your behalf, btw- almost as much as your reading of Sol. A frustrated Democrat that holds contempt for both major of our major candidates for President. Indeed, it's a dead giveaway. But what I enjoyed most of all was you getting all oiled up and flexing your intellectual muscles for me. Sexy stuff.

I agree with you about the Republicans, and don't forget the paid political operatives, but actually I'm a meat popsicle.

Proved what? That your ignorance extends to what you don't know, and you're ably demonstrating as much? Varietals, pathos, no problem there. What you think the root of antipathy is? More to the point, why would you think I would use a word that applies to rhetoric in the classical sense in discussing a wedge issue...? Leave it there to sink through the hickory for a while. As you do, you should consider the irony that the whole of your argument is the assumption that I don't know what I'm talking about, which fallacious as it is, stems from your own ignorance.

Speaking of which, your cherry-picked lawyerly arguments about antipathy, hatred and bigotry are dead on arrival. The thesaurus that you flatter yourself to assuming I would resort to on your account- and what a sad day that would be- will not have hatred and antipathy as synonyms. Related words perhaps, though a 'related word' and a 'synonym' are likewise not the same, (wow, this just keep getting worse for you, huh). It should be noted that you really don't even have to look that up to know it's true- I gave you an example that rather succinctly pointed up the difference. Gay marriage. It is quite possible not to 'hate' gay people and be against gay marriage. But it is not possible to be against gay marriage without bearing any antipathy toward gays. Again, if you weren't so busy trying to incredulous away my arguments, you'd have conceded that before making yourself the simpleton. But 'smoking thesauraus': positively side-splitting.

Here endeth the lesson. De nada.

Oh Brother, see "The rubes and the elites" for more on the clear distinction between hatred and antipathy. Be warned, the author may have reached for the thesaurus for that title...

You know, it occurs to me that I haven't shared with you my educated guess of your identity. Let's see: you're a early-to-mid twenty something who is more socially minded than your peers, and who reads more, but doesn't realize that doesn't make him well read. Given your relative status, and your lack of aptitude for other human endeavor, your identity is wrapped up in your, as you'd have it, superlative consciousness and intellect. So you don't take too kindly to being exposed for what you really are: second rate. A small fish in a microscopic pond. Here's looking at you kid.

Although there are effeminate men, especially from your generation, that would use the colloquialism 'puh-lease', sad as that may be, you most certainly are a woman. I don't know how I missed that. Anyway, this explains the dismissiveness as rhetorical ploy, not to mention your cognitive dissonance over that ploy, however, also means you're much less likely to be outwardly insecure. I stand by the rest of it though- you still think you're the bees knees, and somewhere you don't talk about at parties, you are overcompensating for plenty.