BS: Bigots

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Will Fly
Date: 02 Sep 11 - 11:38 AM

Sorry - that last post was addressed to goatfell.

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: 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: 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 - 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: goatfell
Date: 02 Sep 11 - 12:51 PM

I agree with Will Fly

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: 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 - 04:25 PM

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

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: 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 - 05:26 PM

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

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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 01:19 PM

The ensemble.   (pant pant pant!)

Don Firth

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: 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: 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: Richard Bridge
Date: 04 Sep 11 - 11:38 AM

I think a trench opens before you Don.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 04 Sep 11 - 07:50 PM

"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"

Do I detect an incipient non-sequitur?

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Sep 11 - 08:20 PM

All comes down to definitions and different life experiences...

Intolerance is by definition "bigotry"... However, if that is the entire scope then we are all "bigots"... We are all, I hope' intolerant of people putting loaded guns in cribs with babies... Hey, that meets Webster's definition...

Problem is that this ain't bigotry at all but common sense...

As for me??? It all about racism, sexism and the other "isms"... Them folks are the real bigots...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 04 Sep 11 - 08:40 PM

Dave MacKenzie, neither incipient nor otherwise. Since belief can exist only in the absence of proof, it follows that beliefs must be open to challenge except where they are held by bigots.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Sep 11 - 03:22 AM

Most here believe that the Capitalist System, with a little tweaking,
is sustainable and can save us from the abyss.....when, given the facts we see before us, that belief is much harder to justify than the idea of heaven, hell, and everlasting peace?

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 Sep 11 - 03:38 AM

Don, I repeat myself

"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."

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 05 Sep 11 - 06:29 AM

That definition cited by Richard is pretty much what I've always understood the word to mean and I'm not sure I've heard it used any other way.

Ake, there can be little question that believers in capitalism are having their faith severely shaken, not least by the philosopher John Gray who, among other things, was one of the few to foresee its present crisis. You can check out his latest essay here: The Revolution of Capitalism. When you get to the page, click on the title for the printed version or "Listen Now" to hear it as broadcast by the BBC last week. (The latter may be available for only a few days, and possibly not at all outside the UK.)

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 Sep 11 - 08:21 AM

""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."""

Which basically agrees with my statement that his stereotyping of that elderly middle class lady was not bigotry, but merely a reasonable assumption based on his previous experience of middle class reaction to the criminal classes.

He could not possibly have known that my mother was a well dressed member of the working class and one of the fairest minded people in the world.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Musket
Date: 05 Sep 11 - 08:46 AM

Have you noticed how everybody loves bandying the word "bigot" about, but no two people reckon it means the same thing?

I am usually wedded to an opinion. If I see evidence to change my opinion, I slowly, face savingly, grudgingly, move my position to embrace the revised "truth" that substantiates my stance.

By some definitions on this, that makes me a bigot. By my reckoning, it makes me a typical human? Everybody who keeps saying Tories this, bankers that, .. what is the difference between that and when Bluesman says pikeys this, feral that? Ah.. you are only a bigot if I disagree with you, Ok, I get it now. ZZZZZZZZ As I disagree with both sides in that discussion, I must be rather disagreeable then.

Regarding Bridge's comment about my criminal assault; maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. If you would like to contact the bloke I did it to and act for him, it would be a good day out for us all. I must warn you though, I have a 100% success record defending. (Defended myself once, and was found not guilty. Hah! Who needs legal logic choppers?)

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 05 Sep 11 - 08:55 AM

I'm glad you agree with me, Ian. Shame that's not what you said.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Musket
Date: 05 Sep 11 - 11:31 AM

Go on, I give in...

I have spewed out at least three ways I would use the word bigot, (assuming I would use it. It is a bit explosive as insults go.)

Which one agrees with yours and which doesn't?

I'm confused.

Or would be if arguing the toss with armchair mouth openers concerned my usual day. (Stop frowning, I enjoy being one myself and get a good laugh out of disagreeing with some people, whilst showing my contempt for the opinion of some others and finding myself agreeing with the rest. Just like tne person reading this does.)

If I want to put the world to rights, I'm not sure Mudcat, as wonderful as it is for the music aspects, is the place I would show true colourist and defend rights or whatever crusaders do.

In the meantime, I will enjoy having risen from the pits, (Bridge's definition of me, which makes me something out of Hammer horror films I reckon.)

I agree with Dave MacKenzie. Sounds good, doesn't it? WIsh I knew what it is I agree with, or don't for that matter??

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 Sep 11 - 11:40 AM

Oh, I thought it was olive stones

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Musket
Date: 05 Sep 11 - 11:43 AM

I don't buy them with stones.

I prefer to get stuffed. Something I would commend to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,999
Date: 05 Sep 11 - 02:40 PM

What are ots?

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Wesley S
Date: 05 Sep 11 - 06:07 PM

100