BS: Bigots

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Wesley S
Date: 04 Sep 11 - 05:57 PM

The week a friend of mine spotted a bumper sticker - we're north of Atlanta. It had the Obama "O" on it from the previous election but in place of the "Hope and Change" it said "Rope and Chains".

Yes - bigotry is alive and well.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 04 Sep 11 - 05:52 PM

""I think a trench opens before you Don.""

Statement from experience Richard.

My mother in later life had the appearance of that elderly middle class twinset and pearls lady, and was objected to for juries on no less than three occasions by defence counsel.

Given the nature of the three defendants, and the offences for which they were being tried, it is reasonable to conclude that counsel thought she would not be a good bet for acquittal.

Although she was called for jury service three times, she never actually made it to a trial.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 04 Sep 11 - 02:48 PM

Just to respond to argument that Ake advanced, I am vehemently against all practising of all religions, but I don't think that makes me a bigot. My hostility is not based on a belief that I am right and they are wrong, but the fact that religious belief demands loyalty to something other (real or imagined) than the rest of us on this planet.

Since any believer who is not a bigot must by definition accept that any one of all the other religions could be the right one, I would suppress the lot if I had the means and could think of a method that wasn't counterproductive. I don't question that there might be a god or gods out there, but I can't believe any god would be greatly upset if, in order to do right by each other, we dispensed with the worship/asslicking etc to which He, She or They felt entitled.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 04 Sep 11 - 02:07 PM

I'm a bit confused now (nothing new!) about how extreme a standpoint has to be in order to qualify as bigotry. The terms hatred, beating up, anger and prejudice, among others, have been mentioned so far. I'm wondering if there is a progression in people who start out prejudging, stereotyping, listening to bigoted viewpoints (eg from parents, teachers etc) and cultivating this until they are firmly racist, bigoted or viciously and unreasonably antagonistic to a group. In other words, how does bigotry start?

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Stringsinger
Date: 04 Sep 11 - 12:18 PM

Bigotry contains a component of bullying.
There are rational bases for disagreement.
In some cases, I am intolerant of fascists, fanatics, religious lunatics, duplicitous politicians or business people, and others with whom I vehemently disagree but not to the point of wanting to beat them up or end their lives or denying them the status of their humanity.
What they spout is ideology and is not necessarily an index to how they behave in their personal lives.

Here, George Lakoff has a great deal to say on the subject. Check out his theory of "bi-conceptuals".

Biconceptuals

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 04 Sep 11 - 11:38 AM

I think a trench opens before you Don.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 04 Sep 11 - 10:53 AM

I don't think stereotyping by appearance necessarily equates to bigotry as such, since it doesn't necessarily involve a hard wired hatred, being more likely a case of pigeonholing and unfounded assumptions.

A lawyer in a criminal case, for example, may object to that elderly lady with the horn rimmed specs, twinset and pearls.

That is stereotyping on two levels, in that he assumes she will view his client with disdain because she will be stereotyping him as a ne'er do well.

In neither case is bigotry a factor.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 03 Sep 11 - 03:00 PM

It's true though that some folk judge by appearances, and that's a form of bigotry. My niece was a Goth a while back and wore (for some strange reason) a huge black dreadlock wig and a long cloak. She had black lipstick and nails. People gave her no end of abuse and stick wherever she went. But she's done very well at Uni, studied hard, had the same boyfriend for years and is an active member of her local Church. She's also the kindest lass you could meet. And I bet some murderers/paedophiles etc have been well-dressed and 'respectable' looking. We should try to see past the outside of a person if poss.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,999
Date: 03 Sep 11 - 01:37 PM

There is always a gleam of hope. DO NOT throw away those old panty hose. They make wonderful coffee filters.



And now I'm leaving before this thread gets rowdy.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Sep 11 - 01:19 PM

The ensemble.   (pant pant pant!)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 03 Sep 11 - 01:12 PM

Is it the leggings, Don? I couldn't even get ONE leg into them nowadays! LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Sep 11 - 01:10 PM

Good grief, Eliza! You've got me setting here panting with passion!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 03 Sep 11 - 07:40 AM

Don't spread it around Bonzo, but I used to wear leggings when they were in fashion the first time around, as in those days my legs didn't resemble stuffed sausage draught excluders. And come to think of it, a high-up-on-the-head ponytail (a Norfolk facelift?) complete with scrunchie. Fairy dresses weren't available, but I wore long smock things. Hope you wouldn't have 'hated' me if we'd met all those years ago!

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: saulgoldie
Date: 02 Sep 11 - 05:44 PM

Good point, Eliza. Many homphobes insist that they "hate the sin, not the sinner."

Bonzo, whyontcha just avert yer eyes?

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Sep 11 - 05:43 PM

I think his principal problem is their unavailability

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 02 Sep 11 - 05:26 PM

Now Bonzo, do you hate the women, or just their appearance?

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 02 Sep 11 - 05:09 PM

Well I hate women who insist on wearing hideous looking leggings under their fairy dresses with their Croydon Facelift hair style - so there!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 02 Sep 11 - 04:44 PM

While I agree that any language is dynamic, we need a common concensus in order to communicate with accuracy and full mutual understanding. In day to day chat, each speaker may have his/her own nuances of vocabulary, but for intense or important communication or discussions, it would seem total understanding is more easily achieved if all agree on the meaning of at least the key words. This is (I assume) the aim of the OED. In this thread, where people have strong views of what constitutes bigotry, it would seem to me essential to know what each understands by the word!

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Sep 11 - 04:25 PM

Ah, thank you - but Mither thinks he knows better!

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 02 Sep 11 - 04:03 PM

Richard, I have always considered the full Oxford English Dictionary to be the best, and I imagine all academics would agree. It has the almost infinite English Corpus to back up its definitions.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Sep 11 - 03:55 PM

That, Saul, is the difference between the "private dictionary" and "public dictionary" concepts.   The private dictionary must be negotiated and agreed before use. Judges will, of course refer to dictionaries (if produced as to meaning of a word - I remember a lulu of an argument before Mr Justice Brightman about the difference between "credence" and "credibility" - including at one point the submission by Hall CQ (He drove a real AC Cobra with I think the number plate COB1 or something equally presumptuous) "M'lud I suggest that a dictionary produces itself" - he meant produces it to the court, so he did not need a witness to attest that it was a dictionary and that he had looked at it). Anyway, if a private dictionary has not been established then if a meaning of a word that differs from a public dictionary meaning is required, it will have to be proved by evidence.   

I have cited the best dictionary. Statements as to personal preference really do not count unless proved - as stated.

G'night Mither. And I would not be surprised. And it was of course a criminal assault.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: goatfell
Date: 02 Sep 11 - 12:51 PM

I agree with Will Fly

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Musket
Date: 02 Sep 11 - 12:50 PM

I like that definition saulgoldie.

You can have a rational basis for starting your irrational thoughts I suppose. A bit like the bloke who lived next door to a councillor who went to prison for fiddling his expenses. He decided that anybody and everybody in public office does the same. A bit of a pity really because he wasn't expecting the pint of beer I poured over his head before telling him its alright, I'll get the £2.10 back on expenses.

I reckon he believed me......

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: saulgoldie
Date: 02 Sep 11 - 12:08 PM

Language is dynamic. A dictionary provides a benchmark definition. But ultimately, what a word means is a negotiation between or among the people in the conversation, perhaps based somewhat on that benchmark. Yeah, it can be a tough concept. But sometimes, it is necessary to discuss the meaning of what you have said until you are sure the other person understands what you meant. Words like "gay" and "booty" may mean markedly different things to different people based on their generation or peer group. Just for example. Bigot, likewise.

I think a bigot is someone who hates someone(s) with no rational basis for the hatred, and is unwilling to question or reconsider their attitude.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Musket
Date: 02 Sep 11 - 11:52 AM

The problem with preferring one dictionary over another is that if it ever gives an definition you disagree with, you can keep looking at different dictionaries till you find one that fits your preconception.




Has the penny dropped yet?

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Sep 11 - 11:39 AM

The definitions I gave came from the Oxford English Dictionary. The full one. I prefer it to all other dictionaries.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Will Fly
Date: 02 Sep 11 - 11:38 AM

Sorry - that last post was addressed to goatfell.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Will Fly
Date: 02 Sep 11 - 11:37 AM

Of course not - but if a person with a different point of view won't or can't engage in dialogue, or refuses to present evidence as to why he or she adheres to that point of view - i.e. if the viewpoint appears to be sheer, unreasoning prejudice - then one might come to the conclusion that the person is bigoted...

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,999
Date: 02 Sep 11 - 11:35 AM

Whoever you're talking about, goatfell, may or may not be a bigot. Got nothing to do with like or dislike. I don't know what views you are talking about. You and I may disagree with each other's views with neither, one or both of us being bigots.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: goatfell
Date: 02 Sep 11 - 11:27 AM

so if you don't agree with their views then that person is classed as a bigot

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: saulgoldie
Date: 02 Sep 11 - 11:11 AM

Anger is secondary to the underlying emotion of fear. Fear emanates from our "snake brains." We owe it to ourselves and our species to use our more "evolved" brains: the cerebral cortex.

With bigots, we must dance a few rounds of reason and fact to try to enlighten them. At some point, we must accept that they will remain bigots, and leave the conversation. They have chosen to stay in their snake brains. If they insist on making public policy, we must overwhelm them with countervailing social/public energy. Sometimes the only thing they understand is, sadly, war.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Musket
Date: 02 Sep 11 - 10:52 AM

Dunno John. If somebody volunteers the fact they believe in Jesus, I look to see if they have an intense smile about them.

Worries me, that does.

On a serious note, it also tells me that their rationality is somewhat different to mine. Not better or worse, but definitely different. Of course, I prefer my take on reality, because if I didn't I'd change it.

Not sure if bringing religion and bigotry into the same thread is wise, all the same. The combination of those two words leads to fireworks in my experience.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 02 Sep 11 - 10:34 AM

Someone tell me: Is a bigot better or worse than a smallot?

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: John P
Date: 02 Sep 11 - 10:34 AM

"I hate all investment bankers" is bigoted. "I hate the investment bankers who caused the crash" is not.

"All young black men are gang-bangers" is bigoted. "I am wary around young black men who I don't know and who look like they might be gang-bangers" is not.

"All Travelers are thieves" is bigoted. "I don't like and don't agree with the general nature of Traveler society" is not.

"Women are too emotional" is bigoted. "Women and men, in general, have their emotions engaged by different things" is not.

Stereotypes can be sometimes useful, but only if one is constantly conscious of the fact that no individual is ever completely defined by a stereotype. If someone tell me they are a Christian, I know that they believe in the divinity of Jesus, and nothing else about them.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Musket
Date: 02 Sep 11 - 07:50 AM

And I doubt that it isn't.

But that's why we are all capable of having our thoughts and expressing them.

I'm satisfied I am right on that particular point and you are satisfied I am not. No doubt our resident logic chopper will demonstrate I am wrong when he reads this, but that's ok too.

Because views are subjective.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 02 Sep 11 - 07:46 AM

If that is what you meant, I doubt that it is true.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 02 Sep 11 - 07:42 AM

In the animal kingdom, the lower animals that is, if, say a Turkey or a chicken is acting odd or is hurt, the others will attack it. Why do they do that?
I see a similarity between Turkeys and people. Conformity is preferred, and even though we like to pretend that it is ok for someone to walk around with his pants down around his ass or a girl with her face full of shrapnel, secretly we would like to smack some sense into them.
Some of us came down out of the trees too soon.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Musket
Date: 02 Sep 11 - 07:35 AM

No, I meant opposite view. The clue is to read what I put.

New Labour? Conservative? we haven't had a Labour government since smiling Jim. We haven't had a conservative government since Th*tcher.

Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron.. All trying to represent pragmatic government for all, and all had / have problems keeping their more idealogical brethren under control.

All parties have their bigots (keeping on thread...) and all have those who would appease them.

Oh, and then the Lib Dems...   err....   no, wait for the pubs to open instead.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 02 Sep 11 - 07:22 AM

especially one that got more votes than the opposite view

You mean one that got more votes than Labour.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Musket
Date: 02 Sep 11 - 07:19 AM

Will, I fully agree with you. If people are stubborn and become entrenched in their view regardless of evidence to suggest to the contrary, then by definition they have a bigoted stance. However, where perhaps we can differ is regarding your point on bankers. There is plenty of evidence to show that a large proportion of bankers contributed to the issues society faces now. But if we are not careful we can reach the illogical argument that if a statement turns out to be true then it's ok, but if it is not true then it can be bigoted.

If somebody (x) doesn't like someone (y) because they are, for instance, gay, then the fact that y is gay is true but the reaction of x can be described as bigoted on the basis their lifestyle does not affect x yet x has an opinion that is prejudicial.

Bridge insists in his post above that ignorance is a factor in bigotry. I would turn that on its head and say that if you keep your opinion despite knowledge that contradicts your stance, that is bigotry with bells on.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Sep 11 - 05:55 AM

I agree with Mither on one thing. "If you don't use your own ... ppast experience in order to weigh people up when deciding whether to deal with them, you would be naive. Learning from experience is something we do and are encouraged to do."

That however is not the same thing as prejudice. Prejudice shares the same root as "prejudge" indeed the relevant meaning in the OED of the verb "to prejudice" is "to prejudge, especially to prejudge unfavourably.

"to Prejudge" is there relevantly defined as "to come to a decision without DUE (my emphasis) consideration" or "to disparage in advance".

The relevant meaning of "bigot" found as early as 1687 in Congreve is "a person obstinately and unreasonably wedded to an opinion" - earlier uses were about religion. That of course includes an adverse opinion about people.

Those who form adverse views about all members of an ethnic (or other) grouping without the benefit of sufficient knowledge of them are therefore, bing unreasonable (and obstinate) bigots.

It is not unreasonable to form an adverse view of bankers. Above a certain level of unfortunate minion their purpose is to enrich the banks at the expense of others. It is what they are there for.

It is not unreasonable to form an adverse opinion of offshore account holders. The vast preponderance of such accounts are created and held for tax avoidance purposes which although legal is immoral and necessarily disadvantages the taxing state and many are created and held for purposes of illegal tax evasion.

There is no evidence (that I know of so far) that Travellers, or Afro-Caribbean peoples, or those from the Indian continent or from the Far East are statistically more inclined to crime or to particular crimes than others in similar circumstances.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Will Fly
Date: 02 Sep 11 - 05:07 AM

Ian - one of the reasons that I had such arguments with my bigoted and very prejudiced father was that he would not even listen to the propositions I advanced to challenge his racist views. My arguments - as a teenage lad - may well have been flawed, but he refused to even listen to them, much less discuss them. But note - I held my views for reasons that were good to me and was prepared to back them with such facts as I could muster.

If you're going to raise the question of the actions of the bankers as an example in this discussion, then I have to say that - having read as much as I can in financial publications of the causes of the current recession - I firmly believe that the bankers had a part to play in it through greed and bad business practice. I also believe they were aided, consciously or unconsciously by governmental actions such as removing financial controls, over a long number of years.

Now, if I had to defend my view, which I must stress is neither a left-wing nor a right-wing view (apolitical), if pressed I would muster the arguments and evidence which had led me to that view. If I flatly refused to do that and simply kept repeating my view without backing it up then that - I believe - is the difference between rational debate and bigotry.

I'm not suggesting we debate the bankers in this thread - plenty of other threads about that (!) - but I'm trying here to show where the line is drawn. I also believe, by the way, that phrases like "lying scheming bastards" have no part in a rational debate.

What gets my goat sometimes is that, when one expresses an opinion on one matter on a forum such as this, depending on the matter in question and the viewpoint expressed, one tends to get fitted immediately into a particular political slot. If one expresses sympathy for subject X, one becomes a "lefty"; if one expresses sympathy for subject Y, one becomes a "nazi". Puerile stuff - life isn't black and white but many shades of grey. Black and white are the colours of bigotry

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Musket
Date: 02 Sep 11 - 03:40 AM

Got it..

Bigot means something you call someone else in order to show your sanctimonious intellectual superiority.

Or at least, you would think so, looking at some of the recent threads.

You know, there is one uncomfortable truth that may be relevant here. If you don't use your own prejudice and past experience in order to weigh people up when deciding whether to deal with them, you would be naive. Learning from experience is something we do and are encouraged to do. Bigotry may be a by product of this instinct. It is only your degree of altruism that prevents this surfacing.

Funny how if you are ranting about Tories, ranting about bankers, ranting about offshore account holders; you can say what you like and most people on this forum (at least in The UK... USA folk must be bemused by us,) will stand behind you and say "well said."

My turn to be naive. Isn't that bigotry?   Having a political view, especially one that got more votes than the opposite view is just that, a political view. Yet if you say they are all lying scheming bastards, nobody on this forum bats an eyelid.

So, to revise my earlier definition; bigotry is ok when preaching to the converted. (especially if you use the word as a term of (ironic) abuse.)

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Sep 11 - 11:23 PM

The True Believer!

Indeed! Excellent!

I read it a few decades ago. Good one.

Explains a lot!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Rapparee
Date: 01 Sep 11 - 10:25 PM

Read Eric Hoffer's The True Believer. Old, but his truths still stand.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: katlaughing
Date: 01 Sep 11 - 10:19 PM

I would say the following is a good indication of what someone I would consider a bigot is about these days, from Progress Now Colorado (emphasis mine):

A little over a week ago, right-wing Rep. Mike Coffman of Colorado announced legislation to repeal sections of the federal Voting Rights Act that require ballots in languages other than English. In response, former Colorado Sen. Polly Baca wrote in The Denver Post, "Coffman's actions suggest that he would like to roll the clock back to the time when voters of Hispanic, Asian and Indian heritage were not represented in the political process and the U.S. Congress."

Repealing bilingual ballot requirements for legal citizens? Keep reading: it gets much worse.

Last week, Rep. Coffman told a right-wing AM radio talk show that the Obama administration is "taking a very aggressive move in the people that have illegal status and moving them through citizenship and waving all the fees and waving anything they can to get the process done in time for 2012."

Today, local media critic Jason Salzman, as well as the influential Mother Jones Magazine, picked up on these remarks—and easily proved that they are malicious and groundless lies.

"As Salzman notes, undocumented immigrants can't be moved through the citizenship process, because a prerequisite of applying for citizenship is that you have to be living here legally. The number of fee waivers that have been granted have increased, but again, there's no way to grant a fee waiver to someone who isn't a lawful resident so that's kind of moot; the change is due to the fact that there wasn't previously an easy way to apply. And most crucially, there hasn't actually been an increase in the number of naturalized citizens…" [1]

Rep. Mike Coffman of Aurora has not only proposed legislation deliberately attacking the voting rights of legal American citizens and voters, now he's fabricating false accusations about immigrants who are legally working to become American citizens in a shameless attempt to undermine confidence in our elections--and suppress the vote.

This is an outrage. It's pure and simple bigotry. It's not what Colorado stands for. In fact, Colorado's Constitution was originally published in three languages!

Please don't let Coffman speak for Colorado on voting rights. Send a message right now to Rep. Coffman, demanding that he retract his false statements about legal immigrants to our country—and withdraw his hateful legislation targeting the right of legal American citizens to vote. We'll share your message and comments with Rep. Coffman, the press, and other public officials in the coming days.

There is perhaps no higher ideal in American progressive politics than defending the rights of American citizens to vote. That's why the Voting Rights Acts were written into law decades ago. It's almost unthinkable in this day and age that a politician would call for impeding the access of any citizen to their right to vote.

Not in my state—I hope you agree.

Thank you,

Alan Franklin

Bigot? Zealot? Lunatic? I don't care what label is put on him, I don't want him in a position to enact laws like that!

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Sep 11 - 07:29 PM

Absolutely right, 999!

This is armchair psychology, but I think one of the things that makes a person a bigot is that they have a sense of personal failure or inadequacy and they want to be able to blame it on something or someone other than themselves.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,999 There's the rest.
Date: 01 Sep 11 - 04:48 PM

"I meant that we are all bigots if we hold a position that we refuse to be swayed from and with which others disagree."

I disagree, respectfully. A few times in my life I have been in groups of people with whom I disagreed and I refused to change my position on a topic, because I was right and they were wrong. That doesn't make me a bigot.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: John P
Date: 01 Sep 11 - 04:42 PM

Sorry, Jeri, we cross-posted. I quite agree.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: John P
Date: 01 Sep 11 - 04:40 PM

I've never actually met anyone who wanted to try to deprive anyone of their religious faith. I suppose it happens elsewhere in the world, but it hardly is a problem with the Anglo and American crowd we get around here. I also don't think that such efforts are necessarily bigotry. The people doing it may end up doing the same things that bigots do, but there are lots of reasons for suppressing a religion that don't assume that all members of that religion are the same in a bigotry sense.