The quoted definition of bigotry as "intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself" is from the New Oxford American Dictionary, from Oxford University Press (the OED people). If that's what Google is using, I don't think I can rely on your definition of "crappy."

Yep, it's a crappy definition that does not reflect current usage. It doesn't even reflect the definition in the OED, if you want to check there. 'Bigotry' is not limited to difference of opinion. Nobody uses it like that, you can take a look at the quoted usage examples here, which are from current publications.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigotry

Ahh, yes. Always useful to continuously cherry-pick or alter definitions to tailor words that have an objectively negative moral implication to apply to exactly the standards you want.

Just because some publications use the word in that way does not mean the definition of the word should be shifted.

I’m sorry but this is a pointedly stupid comment. I’m doing the exact opposite of cherry-picking - I’m saying the definition is much broader than the inaccurately narrow one posted.

The OED is a historical dictionary; the Oxford Dictionary of English and the New Oxford American Dictionary are explicitly meant to reflect more current usage. At any rate, I think this is getting awfully pedantic; the definition you linked is "obstinate or intolerant devotion to one's own opinions and prejudices," which seems similar enough that I'm not really sure what the point of this argument is. Given that I'm fairly sure the point of this was whether Chick-Fil-A's executives and in-the-company's-name giving exhibits bigotry, by any dictionary anyone's linked to, the answer is "yes."

The point is that the definition posted is narrow and bad. This isn't some obscure technical point, a debate about the proper usage of 'less' and 'fewer' or whether 'literally' literally means what it says in some odd case. All you have to do to convince yourself of its badness is read a newspaper or magazine or listen to a news report. What exactly would 'racial bigotry' mean if the posted thing was the only definition of 'bigotry'?

As to pedantry, you're the one who started arguing this clearly lousy definition is not lousy, brought up the OED, decided the OED is no good, finally acknowledged the existence of a broader definition but then somehow decided that it's, in fact, as good as identical to the narrow bad definition. I'll be the first to acknowledge I have a habit of getting involved in some deeply silly threads but I'm left utterly flummoxed by this Cirque-du Soleil-level display of mental gymnastics.

I just hope the authors of that lousy definition aren't holding your cat hostage.

Bigotry does not just mean 'intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.' It's a silly definition, not what I want it to mean.

Language does not operate on the basis of what the speaker _wants_ it to mean.

I don't understand what ghost windmill you are tilting at here. At all. It certainly doesn't seem to be anything I've actually said.

I have a pretty personal beef with the idea that language can simply be contorted to supposedly mean whatever someone feels like it should mean, as heading down that road is basically abandoning meaning and communication altogether, and is wholly incoherent.

Yeah but... I didn't say any of that.

> It's a silly definition, not what I want it to mean.

You wrote this intending to say, "I'm saying the dictionary definition is silly, not that bigotry should mean what I want it to mean."

Instead, the sentence says, "The dictionary definition is silly, [because it's] not what I want it to mean."

That's fair, I likely misinterpreted it that way.