Hi Peter,

>Try to read Tamar's words very careful. She exactly points out what the mechanism is that makes 'blond airhead' a case that applies to all blondes. The word 'airhead' is a meant derogative (pejorative). By combining it with the word 'blond', the person who says it implicitly makes clear a negative opinion about all/many blondes.
>The same for 'you black rat'. Rat is meant pejorative. Black rat is then also a negative statement about blacks, not just this black.

I understand that you (and others) interpretate it this, but I just can't see it. For example in holland 'blond' women are assosiated with dumb. It already has a meaning it itself, so a 'blond airhead' would apply to a person who is dumb and a arihead. I simply can't see how this gets reflected to all blonds.

Probably I'm less sensitive than most (I do have a very thick skin!) but I feel that though these expressions are insulting (the addittion of the word 'blond', 'black' or whatever to classify the person makes the insult stronger), those examples factual (by law and grammer explaining) cannot be classified as discrimination. I think that I tend to follow the rational side (used by law) far more than others who tend to look more on emotional based factors.
I do have a problem with vague emotials, cultural and historical arguments because they are not objectively measurable and leads to contradictions in the definition of discrimination itself.

As I said before, what is the difference in discrimination in the following examples:
- 'Black rat' said by a white, 'black rat'said by a black
- 'Black rat' said by a white and 'white rat' said by a black.

If you say there is a difference, it IMO is a sign of discrimination as well because you apply different rules to different groups. Again, equal rights mean equal rules.

Walter,