BS: Bigots

Subject: BS: Bigots
From: Wesley S
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 03:08 PM

Bigots are interesting to me. I find them to be sad, uninformed - and yes - dangerious. I wonder at what point in their life do they form their opinions? I'm sure many of them are raised as children to be bigots like their parents - but many of them turn out that way on their own. I wonder if any studies have been made on what the percentages are and when it happens?

Of course I'm sure very few bigots define themselves using that word. I'm sure most of them consider themselves to be the holders of some Great Truth and the rest of us are deluded slobs. But you know that many of them have to hide their opinions because they are socially unacceptable. Until they get around their own kind. And I've wondered how they find each other. Like child molesters. Is there a secret handshake? A knowing look?

I doubt there are any answers to my questions. But still - ya gotta wonder about these people. And keep an eye on them too.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 03:15 PM

How about the situation where the conventional opinion in the society in which you live is the bigoted one? Racism, sexism, homophobia... As in much of the world most of the time.

Counting numbers of those who hold or despise an opinion doesn't determine these things.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Musket
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 03:17 PM

Dunno, but I know when they started existing;

When the first caveman was hurt by a caveman in a different coloured loin skin. He decided that every caveman who wore that skin was out to hurt him.

Since then, bigotry is a word used to describe someone who doesn't share your opinion, because saying a set of people are good is every bit as generalising as saying they are bad.

Just that one is called caring and the other is called bigotry.

Fascinating subject. Jake Thackray once said he cannot tolerate intolerance.

Curiously, I have just been called a bigot on another thread by someone who reckons anybody who disagrees with him on any issue needs stringing up. (Or forced to read The Grauniad, same thing.)

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 04:21 PM

Some people, who don't have much self-esteem to begin with, NEED to feel superior to someone else.

I remember a quotation from a poor, redneck Southerner remarking on his opposition to Civil Rights.. "Well, if I ain't better'n a n****r, who am I better'n?"

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 04:27 PM

Well, Mither, since you appear to insist that all travellers are sociopaths, but you have not met or studied all of them, nor even enough to be statistically significant, you must be a bigot.

Who anywhere has said that all travellers are good?

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,David E.
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 04:46 PM

According to the dictionary on my computer a bigot is:

"one intolerantly devoted to his or her own prejudices or opinions"

Sounds like most people these days.

David E.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 04:56 PM

MOST people? What % is many? You need to hang out with a better crowd, David.

ANY is too many, but ...........

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: John P
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 05:28 PM

bigotry is a word used to describe someone who doesn't share your opinion, because saying a set of people are good is every bit as generalising as saying they are bad.

Not so. Hatred of and/or attempts to deny the normal benefits of society to a person solely because they are a member of a specific group is bigotry. Calling a person who does these things a bigot is not bigotry. It's not at all about who agrees with who. Being intolerant of intolerance is not an oxymoron.

I agree that calling a group of people good is a form of bigotry -- making assumptions about individuals because of their membership in a group they didn't choose is pretty much the same no matter which way you view that group. The important difference, of course, is whether these beliefs cause someone to do harm or to do good.

The prevailing laws or majority opinion of a populace can be as bigoted as an individual. The United States, right now, is institutionally bigoted against gay people. In the past, this institutional bigotry included women and people of color. There is still LOTS of bigotry against women and non-whites, but at least it is less a matter of law and more a matter of individuals.

It can be very easy to fall into bigotry. It often requires a conscious decision to not do so. When I was young in the late 60s and early 70s, most of the young people I knew always referred to police officers as pigs. Since these were people who prided themselves on open-mindedness and peace and love, they didn't like it when I called their attention to their apparent bigotry. During the push for the Equal Rights Amendment, I always wore an ERA button. This caused lots of other guys, without seeming to think about it all, to display bigotry toward me. There were, at that time, also lots of "feminists" who were adamantly anti-man (even guys wearing ERA buttons!). They also didn't like being told they were acting just like the men they hated. Actually, I once told a woman that I'd rather hear sexism from and ignorant middle-aged man than from a feminist, in that the feminist is supposed to know better. But the point is that lots of people who are otherwise normal, loving folks for some reason find it easy to take on the attitudes of the people around them. It is easier and safer to be share the local majority mindset. I don't consider that an excuse, but it is understandable.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Ed T
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 05:36 PM

Is a bigot a fixed thing, and the definition and "the bigot line" changing with social norms?

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: MartinRyan
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 05:43 PM

Is a bigot a fixed thing, and the defintion and "the bigot line" changing with social norms?

I think the point of GUESTDavid's definition is that often there are TWO "bigot lines" - and a tolerant middle ground. Lots of examples around here...

Regards

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 06:02 PM

It's interesting to speculate what forms of today's intolerance will be viewed as bigotry in a hundred years - and the other way round, what things we accept today will be seen as intolerable. And in another hundred years from then...

I suspect that over time the one shift balances with the other.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: SINSULL
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 06:05 PM

I wish I could say that in my entire life I have never had a bigoted thought - but that would be a lie. In anger and/or frustration, I have seen race, sex, religion as the enemy.
Shame on me.
I do try to judge people by their actions, not their appearance or lot in life. I try.
SINS

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: John P
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 06:07 PM

Is a bigot a fixed thing, and the definition and "the bigot line" changing with social norms?

I think the point of GUESTDavid's definition is that often there are TWO "bigot lines" - and a tolerant middle ground. Lots of examples around here...

Sorry, I can't agree with either of these statements. Well, OK, the first is a question and the answer is "no". A society can be bigoted. Over time, if the majority of the people in the society move away from that bigotry, it may look like the line has moved, but really the minds of the people have moved.

I really don't think there are two bigotry lines. It's usually pretty clear in my experience. What there are, however, are a lot of people who cry "Bigot!" where bigotry doesn't exist. I've noticed a lot of bigots doing that, sort of seeing themselves in others, perhaps. I've also seen anti-bigots calling someone else a bigot when they really aren't. It's all a matter of treating individuals as individuals.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 06:28 PM

In my experience many people are called bigots when in fact a more appropriate term would be "Zealots".

Zealots tend to be intensely "for" whatever is their POV.

Bigots, in the main, tend to be intensely "against" ideas, or groups, or even individuals who fail to recognise their greater wisdom or knowledge.

I have met many more zealots than bigots, but I have always found it difficult to get on with either.

Maybe I'm the bigot, if I can't tolerate them.........?

'S a bugger innit?

Don T.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Bobert
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 07:31 PM

Problem here is that we have a "dictionary" definition which is past its shelf life... "Intolerance" isn't the ball of wax here... I mean, I am intolerant of stupidity... Does that make me a bigot??? I am intolerant of racism... Does that make me a bigot??? I'm intolerant of folks who go out and kill other people for no reason... Does that make me a bigot???

I think Webster needs to join the 21st century...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: John P
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 07:57 PM

In my experience many people are called bigots when in fact a more appropriate term would be "Zealots".

Good point. I, too, find both difficult to deal with, but I can forgive someone who is excited about something to the exclusion of all else easier than I can forgive a racist or a gay-basher. Now when a zealot lets his or her excitement get the better of their sense of ethics and starts acting like a bigot . . . never mind, too many permutations.

Maybe I'm the bigot, if I can't tolerate them.........?

I don't think so. The sentence "I'm intolerant of intolerance" displays one of the charming aspects of the English language, where the same word has two different meanings, depending on the context. In this case, both are in the same sentence, but they don't mean the same thing. Perhaps a less ambiguous phrasing could be "I'm intolerant of bigotry." Hmm, maybe not. It still seems to require an understanding of the contextual definition of "intolerant". But I know that being bigoted against bigots is not the same of being intolerant of intolerance. The first is sort of funny in a sad sort of way, and the second is a statement of ethics.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,David E.
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 10:07 PM

When I copied pasted the definition of the word "bigot" the point I was attempting to make, unsuccessfully, was that the word itself has come to mean something in modern society other than what it is suppose to mean. I meant that we are all bigots if we hold a position that we refuse to be swayed from and with which others disagree. That doesn't necessarily make us loathsome people. There is nothing wrong with having a well thought out belief and sticking to it*, it just seems to me that as soon as some people find something that they disagree with the stigma words start getting bandied about, that's all. Mudcat is full of bigots, as someone said, if we are using the actual definition of the word, but people passionate in their beliefs, if we are willing to be polite about it. That's all. Didn't mean to cause trouble.

David E.

* this is not condoning genocide!

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Janie
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 11:14 PM

Well said, David E.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Sep 11 - 01:38 AM

Even discussing 'bigots', is like promoting Vaseline for your head to go in easier!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Will Fly
Date: 01 Sep 11 - 04:07 AM

I've always thought of a bigot as someone who holds a strong hatred of an idea or a race or a viewpoint (for example) without actually having thought about, or considered the evidence for an alternative viewpoint - in other words, blind, unreasoning hatred with no foundation.

As a teenager I had huge arguments with my father who (and we're talking late '50s/early '60s here) showed nothing but contempt for, as he called them, wops, niggers, Fenians (i.e. Catholics), Eyetyes, Yids, etc. I thought he was beyond contempt, not only because he held those views, but also because he would not listen to arguments against those views - he would engage in debate - and ended every 'discussion' by telling me to shut up.

He was a walking, talking exemplar of a bigot.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 01 Sep 11 - 08:05 AM

I suppose stereotyping or snobbery is today's lesser form of bigotry but it's still bigotry all the same. I agree with the comment about preferring to hear an older man make a sexist remark rather than coming from someone who should know better you can just about accept that he was brought up in another generation.   But then after reading Sinsull's thread it has made me really question myself.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: kendall
Date: 01 Sep 11 - 08:11 AM

It's human nature. "Everyone needs a dog to kick". (Helen Schneyer)

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: John P
Date: 01 Sep 11 - 09:59 AM

GfS: Even discussing 'bigots', is like promoting Vaseline for your head to go in easier!

Yes, well, I can understand why a bigot such as yourself (one of three on Mudcat that I know of) would not like to have conversations about bigotry. If you don't like the conversation, go away. If you don't like being called a bigot, stop being one.

Yes, GfS, I'm intolerant of bigotry. Deal.

One more thing: bigots who claim to be Christians, such as yourself, are even worse than normal garden-variety bigots. Bigotry AND hypocrisy, all in one handy package.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Rapparee
Date: 01 Sep 11 - 10:02 AM

I hate bigots!

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 01 Sep 11 - 01:54 PM

Many bigots I have met seem to have had an enormous amount of anger in their character. It's interesting to speculate whether this has its roots in their childhood frustrations and disappointments. Parents also are much to blame in indoctrinating their offspring at an early age. Lastly, they seem to lack empathy, or the ability to sympathise with others' difficulties or pain. I think it is a very dangerous mindset, and causes all kinds of evil in the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,sandra
Date: 01 Sep 11 - 02:30 PM

We often laugh or dismiss bigots as Archie Bunkers, but I totally agree with Wesley, Eliza etc. about the dark side of bigots. They are very dangerous. Just ask poor Dave Letterman, who now has the misfortune to find out how just how vile and vicious bigots are to those who are Jewish.
And he's not even Jewish.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 01 Sep 11 - 02:41 PM

People of my generation (ie old!) have always tended to lump folk together and see them as a group, not as individuals. For instance, 'blacks', 'the Welsh' 'Roman Catholics' etc etc. They then attribute certain characteristics to that group as a whole. For example, all travellers are thieves, all Roman Catholics are superstitious and so on. This is a major mistake. It's only by recognising that there are ALL types of people in every 'group' that we can avoid bigotry. By meeting and getting to understand and like for example a black, elderly lady or a young Catholic mum, at a personal level, we become wiser and more tolerant. There are far more similarities among all peoples than there are differences, IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Wesley S
Date: 01 Sep 11 - 02:48 PM

Speaking of old - I still remember seeing water fountains for "colored only". Since I was 5 the first time I saw one - we moved to the south in 1957 - I thought the colored only fountains had colored water. I was dissapointed to see that it had the same clear colorless water I was used to drinking my whole short life.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Sep 11 - 03:11 PM

The ones who stereotype/group people, are not the old, but the "liberals" who scream for special status for minorities.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Will Fly
Date: 01 Sep 11 - 03:29 PM

The ones who stereotype/group people, are not the old, but the "liberals" who scream for special status for minorities.

I seem to hear the voice of a bigot here...

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: wysiwyg
Date: 01 Sep 11 - 03:32 PM

I have never found it useful even to think of people using this term. The reality I might be trying to reach is so much more complex! I want the real human being underneath the learned rigidities, and I usually find them without too much trouble. But to give in to their labeling pattern by slapping one on them.... nope.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Wesley S
Date: 01 Sep 11 - 03:33 PM

What one group calls "special status" another group calls "basic civil rights".

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Jeri
Date: 01 Sep 11 - 03:37 PM

I wasn't exposed to bigotry I could identify when I was a kid. In one respect, it was good. I didn't grow up looking down on any particular group of people. On the other hand, it meant I was ignorant. I didn't know what it looked like when I saw it, not in other people or in myself. People always look to find their place in society-- where do they fit in, and what is the pecking order. It's human nature. I think we'll be best when we figure out how to fit in and respected without having to put individuals or groups of people down.

I doubt that will happen anytime soon, if ever. There's always a bunch of people we don't like that we can say nasty things about, and we don't question ourselves for doing it.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Sep 11 - 04:05 PM

Will.....you would not recognise a "bigot" if you found one in your soup.

You know who the biggest bigots are? Those who wish to deprive ordinary people of religious faith.....this place is full of them, and I say that as a lifelong atheist.
Go look in the mirror Mr.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Will Fly
Date: 01 Sep 11 - 04:30 PM

Will.....you would not recognise a "bigot" if you found one in your soup.

How do you know? I found one in my father - from a very early age. Not a pleasant discovery, I can assure you.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Jeri
Date: 01 Sep 11 - 04:35 PM

Excuse me, but
WILL YOU PEOPLE WALK AWAY FROM A FUCKING TROLLING POST(ER) JUST ONCE IN A FUCKING WHILE?
Thank you for thinking about those of us who wish to discuss the subject.

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.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 07:35 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,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: 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

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Smokey.
Date: 05 Sep 11 - 06:45 PM

What are ots?

It's a form of sexual attraction, 9.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Sep 11 - 02:43 AM

Thanks Peter, as you know,I am in full agreement.

Trouble is, folks are still casting about for a painless remedy,but I'm sure its going to take a fair number of "bigots" to mend human society.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Sep 11 - 11:21 AM

Bigotry can be explained by a total absense of tolerence,

which helps explain all the new local announcements of ZERO TOLERENCE rules. They will be enforced by administrators and Police as they see fit.

Personally I have zero tolerence for zero tolerence nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: John P
Date: 06 Sep 11 - 02:50 PM

Bigotry can be explained by a total absense of tolerence,

Nope. You seem to be leaving out the "obstinately and unreasonably wedded to an opinion" part.

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

Nope. Only amongst definition quibblers.

C'mon folks, do you really not understand what is meant by the word as it is used in today's society? I suppose to be clear we could say "racist bigot" or "sexist bigot" or "anti-gay bigot" or "capitalist bigot", but it's really a lot easier to just say "bigot".

Note: Someone who thinks capitalism is grand is not necessarily a bigot, as the word is normally understood, even if they cling to their ideas after a financial crash. Someone who thinks capitalism is grand and that all socialists are automatically cretins is a bigot. Big difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 06 Sep 11 - 04:11 PM

And vice versa

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,Chaz Brewer
Date: 07 Sep 11 - 08:48 AM

The Cambridge Dictionary says;

bigot
noun /ˈbɪg.ət/ [C] disapproving
Definition
a person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs and who thinks that anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong

how does this pan out when it comes to religion and the JWs?

CB

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,999
Date: 07 Sep 11 - 09:27 AM

Religious people are no more exempt from being bigoted than anyone else is, imo.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Sep 11 - 01:48 PM

Bigotry is in the mind of the beholder.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 07 Sep 11 - 04:30 PM

I hate certain cuts of lamb - they're definitely gigotted.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,999
Date: 07 Sep 11 - 04:53 PM

And certain taps are spigotted.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 07 Sep 11 - 06:31 PM

Here's a really neat one...

#####

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 07 Sep 11 - 06:42 PM

Just a figotte of speech.....

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 08 Sep 11 - 04:06 AM

When it comes to bigotry
And certainly spiggottry
You have to turn off the tap,
And cut the crap -
Its really obligatory.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,The Length
Date: 08 Sep 11 - 05:01 AM

Bigot or racist is word used on mudcat when an argument is lost.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Penny S.
Date: 08 Sep 11 - 05:50 AM

I keep remembering the shocked faces at a Quaker conference when, seeing a timetabled item about bigotry I essayed a joke, "If there's one thing I really can't stand, it's a bigot!" They didn't even relax when I got to the end.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 08 Sep 11 - 10:30 AM

good one-the length.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Sep 11 - 12:48 PM

"Bigot or racist is word used on mudcat when an argument is lost."
Or when posters make bigoted or racist statements - we've just had a thread closed down because of the over-indulgence in the latter.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Sep 11 - 04:25 PM

'Bigots' is what certain people call you, when they can't win an argument with facts, but want to gather emotional support against you, from like minded non-thinkers!!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Justa Picker
Date: 08 Sep 11 - 04:41 PM

Everyone is a bigot. Some are just more reluctant to admit it than others.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: frogprince
Date: 08 Sep 11 - 04:42 PM

"Bigotry is in the mind of the beholder"

I know a local man who refers to black men as niggers, to black women as niggresses, and to black children as niggrettes. He doesn't do it as any kind of humor; he does it in the context of incessently spewing hatred. Ake, do you really believe that any bigotry in this case is just in my mind?

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,The Length
Date: 08 Sep 11 - 04:48 PM

"Bigot or racist is word used on mudcat when an argument is lost."
Or when posters make bigoted or racist statements - we've just had a thread closed down because of the over-indulgence in the latter.
Jim Carroll"

A perfect example.

I guess someone expressed an opinion on a thread and this guy didn't like it, so he called him a bigot or racist.

Thanks buddy for this.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Sep 11 - 04:58 PM

The problem with the use of the word 'Bigot' and 'Racists', by those that use it, is they tend to also spew some other accompanying garbage, that shows how short sighted, and dumb they are..and have to resort to worn out 'left-liberal' talking point tactics. They are clearly out of touch, and hung over into the past, when calling someone that MIGHT have go them a little mileage......maybe! Losers use it all the time!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: John P
Date: 08 Sep 11 - 05:09 PM

Guest the Length,
"I guess someone expressed an opinion on a thread and this guy didn't like it, so he called him a bigot or racist."

You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Did you see the thread in question? There was a person using extremely disparaging and offensive terminology to describe a large group of people. It was no-holds-barred bigotry. I'm sorry the thread was shut down. The asshole should just have been kicked off the site.

"Bigot or racist is word used on mudcat when an argument is lost."

Nope. Not that I've seen, Can you provide some examples? You seem to be agreeing about this with Guest from Sanity and Akenaton, two well-known anti-gay bigots. Do you really want to do that?

Justa Picker says:
"Everyone is a bigot. Some are just more reluctant to admit it than others."

This is an interesting idea. Why do you think so? Can you explain it further? What are you bigoted against?

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Sep 11 - 05:42 PM

john P.: "Justa Picker says:
"Everyone is a bigot. Some are just more reluctant to admit it than others."
This is an interesting idea. Why do you think so? Can you explain it further? What are you bigoted against? "

I'm not bigoted...I hate everybody......equally, too!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Jeri
Date: 08 Sep 11 - 06:11 PM

I happen to agree with Justa Picker. People who are bigoted and are happy being bigoted are pains in the ass. People who know they're bigoted and try to overcome it are possibly the best of us. People who think they're free from bigotry and pronounce this with a holier-than-thou "you must be talkin' 'bout somebody else" are the most dangerous people.

We're all bigoted. It's part of being human. My family is better than other people's families. My school is better, my town is better, my country is better, my religion is better, my logic is better, my political beliefs, my sense of style, my taste in music, my chili, my coffee is better than your coffee.

Strictly according to some definitions of "bigot" we can't NOT be bigots. Even if you add the qualification of intolerance to others' beliefs, we probably fit in there somewhere. Because we are RIGHT, and our ways are better.

The problem is when we start treating other people differently based on our beliefs. If we don't admit the possibility that we, meaning each one of us, is capable of letting our beliefs affect our relationships with others, we almost surely WILL.

I always thought I wasn't bigoted, but then came a situation at work when a guy who worked for me got into trouble. I'd often eat lunch in my car, listen to the radio and sneak cigarettes. I remember thinking, during one of these lunch time rituals, about whether I believed he should get a second chance or be let go, and I didn't have much faith that he'd ever amount to anything. I remember then questioning why I believed that, and the answer, combined with the knowledge that I would soon have a very crucial decision about his future to make, scared the SHIT out of me. I didn't really like myself just then, but I think I would have been a lot worse off if I hadn't even admitted I might be a bit prejudiced.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Sep 11 - 06:21 PM

"I guess someone expressed an opinion on a thread and this guy didn't like it, so he called him a bigot or racist"
Nope - the individual in question who brought the discussion crashing around our ears claimed that all Travellers (gypsies et al) were thieving scum who should all be sent back to where they came from and that he (the bigot) was delighted at the fact that all Travellers, (because of the life they are forced to live) have short lifespans and will not live as long as the rest of us.
His "right to say what he believed" was defended by somebody who has previously claimed that "all male Pakistanis were potential paedophiles because of their culture" - bigotry, racism - what??
It would be helpful with these discussions if people who make statements such as are being made here would actually look into the facts of the cases before putting finger to keyboard.
Bigots and racists are not an imaginary species - they really are out there - as Mulder and Scully have occasionally been heard to remark!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 08 Sep 11 - 07:05 PM

Strange word all the same.

Why not smallgotted, or littlegotted, or tinygotted.....

Perhaps because of my sobriquet, I detect a certain sizeist agenda against us big-ots.

Its too easy to point the finger.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,The Length
Date: 08 Sep 11 - 07:46 PM

Some of the comments here are just crazy. Are you saying I have to agree with you or support you to not be considered a bigot?

My job in life is to live my life, in the best way possible according to my morals. I think people ought to grow thicker skin and realize there are jerks everywhere, but those jerks have a right to their opinion just as you do.

If people thought their way was the only right way they'd have enough confidence to just live it without calling their opponent a bigot. Its appeared to me that if you don't agree with or support gay issues you are a bigot. I really don't care what two guys get up to in a bedroom. When they wave and blow kisses at me and thrust their penis in a gold G sting at people in the street from the back of a pink truck on National Gay Rights day, hell yeah, I will say I find this offensive.


If someone says "I simply can't accept homosexuality, the thought of two men in and out of each other like pistons is repulsive". Maybe they feel issues concerning race is abused by some as a tool in certain issues ?

I would like to add, I have no problems with either of the above. Let's say I did, then anyone, who has a problem with my views and my stance on these two issues is the one with the problem, not me.

It appears to me that if you don't agree with or support certain issues on this site you are a bigot. I don't think disagreeing with a lifestyle or point of view makes you a bigot.

My interpretation of the word is that a bigot is someone who is not prepared to listen to alternative views or even consider them, so to me that would make the comment above by Jim Carroll bigoted.

If you listen and accept that someone else has different views, attitudes or behaviour but you don't agree with them that's fine.

John P, people may disagree with the lifestyle or those you refer to in a previous thread, but do you agree, you are the one who is wrong, supporting people who are in fact breaking the law ?

That doesn't make this person a bigot. It simply means they have another point of view and talk from the hip in a language that is normal to them.

I repeat my earlier comment, "Bigot or racist is word used on mudcat when an argument is lost."

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Jeri
Date: 08 Sep 11 - 08:18 PM

I do think that calling a person a bigot is just a way of demonizing them. It's a way to push them further away. Once you label a person a "bigot", you may not see a need to try to understand a single thing they say. It makes more sense to me to label things a person does or says as bigoted and not label the person.

True, there are people who can be relied upon to say or do bigoted things, but most of us don't know each other well enough to never want to try to understand another person's point of view, and if you dislike someone that much, why the hell are you having a discussion with them?

If you so look down on someone else, aren't you also a bigot?

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Sep 11 - 08:53 PM

"Some of the comments here are just crazy."
Yes they are - you've just added to them.
Are you claiming tht racism or bigotry doesn't exist or what?
If the two examples I provided aren't bigotry and racism - what are they.
Describing whole ethnic groups as "all thieving scum" and taking pleasure in the fact that they will all die prematurely is racist bigotry.
Describing a whole ethnic group as "thieving Pikeys (the traveller equivelant of "nigger") scum" is racist bigotry
Describing all male Pakistanis as "culturally inclined to paedophelia" is plain and simple racism.
These terms are intended to insult, demean, persecute and even terrorise whole cultures and races - they have even led to wholsale slaughter of ethnic groups (ever heard of the ethnic cleansing that took place in former Yugoslavia and Ruanda, Civilised countries have been forced to pass laws to prevent the damage such beliefs do to our society - laws against "the incitement to race hattred" (are these anti-racist laws bigoted?   
Do you find these opinions acceptable on an open discussion forum?
Nobody is attempting to "look down" on anybody"; rather we are suggesting that the demeaning of anybody because of their race, colour or creed is a form of terrorism which ruins, and even ends lives.
And that includes your own generalising of homosexuals.
I seem to remember there being a bit of an altercation some sixty years ago that sent six million Jews and a quarter of a million gypsies to Nazi gas chambers because they were Jews and Gypsies (can't remember the number of homosexuals offhand, but they were included in the figures).
So if my abhorrence of racism and bigotry makes me a bigot, doesn't your opposition to my expressing my opinion on the matter make you a bigot?
And so ad infinitum.....
Don't be silly!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Smokey.
Date: 08 Sep 11 - 09:33 PM

It seems to me that bigotry's more about attitude than content, and it very often takes a bigot to accuse another of bigotry rather than attempt to understand an opposing view for the sake of reasonable discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: John P
Date: 08 Sep 11 - 11:10 PM

The reason I call Akenaton and GfS bigots is NOT because they don't like the "gay lifestyle". It's because they argue vehemently against giving normal civil rights to all gay people, based on their dislike of the lifestyle of SOME gay people. They can hold any damn opinion they like, but support of legal discrimination against a group of citizens is pretty much the definition of bigotry.

It hasn't caused me to stop paying attention to what they say. If anyone cares to go back and read all those long threads, they will find that lots of people begged them to follow their judgment with any reasonableness at all. We followed every path of their statements to the logical end and never got any response to any of it. They just kept repeating that it was somehow going to destroy society if gay folks were treated like the rest of us. This is why I call them bigots. Unreasoning hatred of a group of people and an attempt to curtail their civil rights.

I know that calling someone a bigot does no good whatsoever when it comes to helping them understand that they are spreading their manure on other people. It does, however, help to stigmatize them. I think white supremists, gay-bashers, and religious fanatics ought to be stigmatized as soon as they try to impose their wills on anyone else. Actually, I think they ought to be stigmatized as soon as they open their fool mouths. They can hardly claim to be ignorant of what they are saying.

the Length, I also don't like the extreme displays that take place at Gay Rights parades. I can well understand why you don't. Do you think gay people in general should enjoy the same civil rights as the rest of us?

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Smokey.
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 12:08 AM

Calling someone a bigot does no good whatsoever, full stop (or 'period'). It's a statement of opinion which isn't going to change anyone's mind. It's no more than name-calling, regardless of who may or may not believe it to be true.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 02:16 AM

Yes, but it may hurt their feelings, wound them, terrorize them into silence or if nothing else at least make the namecaller himself feel gloriously superior to the one he has just called "bigot"...thus it promises juicy emotional dividends and psychological satisfaction of a sort to the one hurling the ephithet, doesn't it?

Hence its great popularity and appeal as a way of presumeably reducing the stature of the targeted person...and hopefully even damning them for all time.

The Inquisition used to do stuff like that too, they gloried in it, but they had the temporal power to follow it up with physical torture and a variety of grisly forms of execution. Good thing they aren't still in power to do that now, isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 04:29 AM

"Calling someone a bigot does no good whatsoever, "
Yes it does - it draws attention to their bigotry and helps build opposition to the effects it has on its intended victims - you have your example in pre-war Germany, where many ignored the systematic attacks on the Jews - the result was inevitable.

"It is necessery only for a good man to do nothing for evil to triumph"
Edmund Burke

Calling somebody a bigot without backing it up with argument is a fairly sterile exercise, but even argument can have no effect on some people - I suggest that if anybody has any doubt of this, read through either the 'Dale Farm evictions', or the earlier 'Muslim prejudice' threads - baoth contain racism and bigotry in the extreme. Plenty of other examples on this forum, but these should keep you occupied.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Ironmule
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 04:51 AM

When we moved to Florida in '57 I was old enough to understand a little more than WesleyS, but far too naive and ignorant to see things as I do now at the age of 65. (perhaps I should say I'm his older brother??")

I used to drink from those "colored" water fountains, more from a sense that those who would post a sign like that were idiots than any other motivation. I was 12yrs old and hadn't any grasp of the significance of the unfolding civil rights movement and the morality of those who would oppress and those who would liberate.

I can understand someone feeling that strangers are more dangerous than a family group. "Us versus them" has been a non trivial way of seeing things for most of our evolution from apes to man.

I think the difference between a bigot and anyone else, is that a bigot wants to harm the "other" rather than be neutral or freindly.

I don't want to harm anyone until you have proven yourself to be a direct threat to me and mine. If your skin is alabaster or green with pink poka-dots, I couldn't care less. I simply want innocents to live a good life and bad guys to be frustrated. To quote a guy who had some bad luck in this regard, "Why can't we all get along?"

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 07:32 AM

So what are the implications of what you think Jim?

There are certain people who are bigots and by virtue of that ....? they should not be listened to, their point of view is invalid, they should be be outed as a disgrace to humanity...

If the situaton is as you say, what do you suggest?

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 07:54 AM

Jim Carroll,
"Describing all male Pakistanis as "culturally inclined to paedophelia" is plain and simple racism."

No-one described them thus Jim.
I repeatedly corrected you about this.
There was no suggestion of paedophilia. Minors were said to be targeted for pimping because the were easier meat.
It was suggested that this demographic was over-represented in this abuse because of tensions related to unhappy arranged cousin marriages and absence of any courtship practices.
This suggestion came not from me, but from national figures with extensive knowledge and experience, who in most cases were well known anti-racists from within that community.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 07:58 AM

Jim Carroll.
"or the earlier 'Muslim prejudice' threads - baoth contain racism and bigotry in the extreme"

May I remind you Jim that when I and MtheGm asked you for examples, you failed to find any!

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 07:58 AM

""There are certain people who are bigots and by virtue of that ....? they should not be listened to, their point of view is invalid, they should be be outed as a disgrace to humanity...""

I'd say that's a distortion of what Jim said, Al, as he was quite specific in his references to those posters.

Would you say that anybody has the right openly to slander a whole ethnic grouping, sexual orientation, or other such entity, and not be called to account for it?

Nobody is suggesting that bigots be ignored or ostracised in all areas of communication, but surely attention must be drawn to the fact that the majority of the community finds their ideas and feelings on certain subjects to be inappropriate, unacceptable and offensive to put it mildly.

And Mudcat, like it or not, is such a community.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 08:24 AM

" to slander a whole ethnic grouping,"

Who has ever done that Don?

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 08:48 AM

Our resident heterosexual, homosexual activist Mr John Peekstok,and to a lesser extent Jim, are both liars.
I am slightly bigotted against liars as they tend to kill reasonable discussion.
They accuse Keith A of being an "anti Pakistani bigot" and myself and Sanity of being an "anti gay bigots".....this is simply a way of trashing our arguments on the issues involved. How can any sane person be "anti gay", or "anti Pakistani"?   the contention is laughable. My stance has always been against the promotion of homosexuality in society as being a safe healthy and normal lifestyle. This promotion is being carried out not by homosexuals, but by successive "liberal" governments aided by the media and people like Mr Peekstok who would like us to believe they speak for the majority of our society. They do not, but have succeeded in bullying and intimidating many into silence.....this is the action of Fascists.
I have spent a long time on this forum constructing an argument to support my case, complete with health statistics for hiv/aids amongst male homosexuals which are horrific and worsening year by year.
The crowning idiocy of the "liberal" homosexual agenda has been revealed in the UK this week, with the announcement that male homosexuals are no longer to be banned from contributing to national blood bank......on grounds of equality!
This on top of the decision to redefine Christian marriage to accomodate the same sexual minority.

It is surely a form of madness in this society of ours.
No wonder we see it crumbling around us.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 09:02 AM

Well of course Hitler maligned a whole group of people. People do. malign other groups.

I do think that one reason bigots get elected so often though is that they exploit reasonable fears that the population have, and fears that for which there are no simplistic answers, that the politicians can trot out as 'the answer'.

Case in point. Cameron today announces that he instituting a policy of 'zero tolerance' for schools that fail. Does any sane person think that Cameron cares more about this issue than teachers who have worked their entire lives in the deprived areas of our cities?

The answers why the schools are failing are many and varied and the reasons would not fit into a soundbyte. You can't help thinking perhaps he should have gone the whole hog and blamed it on the gypsies and homosexuals.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,The Length
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 09:18 AM

akenaton, you are correct in what you say. The last two posts by Jim Carroll have been a bit off the wall. Keith A. seems to have put his case across well.

Maybe there should be a thread about trouble makers and liars. This guy Jim is simply flaming. He is trail blazing you guys.

Anyway, be care, It would appear he knows a few Irish travellers, hung like donkeys who like to lift shirttails.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 09:45 AM

Why does it bother you that Christyian homosexuals want to get married?

Be careful of crowning idiots. there are always new challengers for the throne.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 10:24 AM

akenaton: "........They accuse Keith A of being an "anti Pakistani bigot" and myself and Sanity of being an "anti gay bigots"....."

HELLO AKE!!!....Jeez, I was repeatedly called a 'bigot' just for saying, that homosexuality was NOT genetic, nor has any proof found that it was, and that it was behavioral! I'm sure you remember those legendary threads!! Still, to this day, which has now been over a year and a half, there still is no defining evidence that it has anything to do with genes!...but, at least a couple of my antagonists, on here has softened their points of contention..(also due to the fact that one of them has been shredded repeatedly on the subject....to which he still holds a grudge).

But it is nice to cross paths with you again!!

Warmest Regards.....you left wing-nut!..(wink!)

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,999
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 10:24 AM

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.
    Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "
    "But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.
    "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
    "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
    "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master      that's all."
    Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. "They've a temper, some of them—particularly verbs, they're the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That's what I say!"

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 10:51 AM

It doesn't bother me personally Al, but it sure bothers lots of Christians who have always believed that marriage, procreation and family structure were bound together and between man and woman.

The problem with redefining such matters is where do you stop? Before long the institution becomes worthless.

A couple of weeks ago, I read a "rights activist" comment that the issue was not about rights, as rights could be granted through civil union.

It was about the word. About being the same as everybody else, but they are not the same as everybody else, they are a sexual minority whose behaviour carries with it massive rates of a very serious, potentially fatal disease......I do not know why this is so, but until we do know, this type of sexual behaviour should not be promoted as "safe, healthy and normal"

Just to repeat from another thread, unaids latest figures for the UK show that male homosexuals account for 71% of new hiv infections.
CDC in the US state that 1 in 5 male homosexuals carry the hiv virus.
These figures are being concealed from the general public in the UK as all demographics are being lumped together showing that hiv rates are falling...whilst in reality, the infection rates amonst male homosexuals are rising rapidly.

If these rates were transferred to any other demographic, like white girls, drug users, or asian men there would be immediate demands for a medical inquiry, but rather than cast doubt on the all powerful "liberal equality agenda" we continue to allow young men to die in their thousands.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 11:00 AM

Sorry to cross post Bruce, but I do understand your meaning
So good to see you!
Hi Sanity! keep fightin for the truth.....I love this place!

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 12:10 PM

just to clarify-
a homosexual has to indicate that he has not had anal/oral sex with another man for at least 6 months or a year[not sure which]under the new rules re giving blood.
seems to indicate the dangers of the "gay" lifestyle being recognized by govt, as also akeneton contends.
such recognition hardly makes either bigotted-certainly not cameron who seems pretty PC on "gay rights"

i think true bigotry is manifest by using verbal gutrot instead of reasoned argument and though a generalization, those lacking the latter often resort to the namecalling.
argument weak-shout like blazes!.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 12:55 PM

I think what you are forgetting Ake is that when people come out of slavery, they come out with their heads held high and singing. They are a people that has come through.

And these are people not in held in slavery for a mere five hundred years but thousands of years.

My own father as a CID man used to have duties staking out toilets. he used to attend lectures by experts proving that anal sex will kill anyone who takes part in it. That was the orthodoxies of the time. And a bloody sad disgraceful time it was.

You must know same sex couples who live together in loving relationships. if you don't - you should -theres enough of them about nowadays. many Christian churches have gay groups within them.

The times they are a changing, and about bloody time!

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: John P
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 01:22 PM

If there were a white person on Mudcat using the N word liberally and loudly complaining that it should be illegal for black people to marry white people, what would your reaction be? Would you speak out against the idea, or would you accuse anyone who called them on it of being a bigot?

What if this person claimed that his religion was being suppressed because allowing a black person marry a white person redefined his church's definition of marriage?

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 01:26 PM

Keith
"May I remind you Jim that when I and MtheGm asked you for examples, you failed to find any!"
Not only did we not fail to find any but we put this up well over two dozen times as a direct quote from you - first you denied having written it, then you then admitted you wrote it, but said you couldn't take responsibility for it because it somebody else's opinion, finally you said that you couldn't take responsiblity for it because you had no knowledge of the subject.
"Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency" but only because of the testimony of all those knowledgeable people, and always acknowledging that only a tiny minority succumb."
That is direct quote from you, nobody else, it is your statement it is a direct reference to the seduction of underage girls (paedophelia, and to suggest that "all male Pakistanis....." are potential paedophiles because of their culture is outrageously racist.
There is no need for me to put it up again - your past behaviour has returned to bite your bum!
I never mentioned your name, but it was courageous of you to join into confess past sins.
Now what lies would they be Ake?
You'll be telling us next you didn't claim that clerical sexual abuse was all down to those homosexuals in the church!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 02:46 PM

Jim, I did say,
" but only because of the testimony of all those knowledgeable people"

I believed them Jim.
Jack Straw, Anne Cryer, Lord Ahmed, Jasmin Allibhai Brown and Mohammed Safiq.
That makes me a bigot?
They know more about the Pakistani community than I do, and maybe even more than you do. The first two represent Pakistani areas and the last three are part of the Pakistani community.

How do you know they are wrong Jim?
What superior knowledge tells you they are all wrong and all racist bigots?

They have spent their lives fighting racism and prejudice against Pakistanis Jim.

Their opinions were published in all the media, and not labelled "racist" except by you.
No other explanation was produced, but anyone who believes them is a bigot and a racist according to Jim Carroll.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Jeri
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 03:01 PM

Oh, stuff it! Y'all are just a big old opportunistic thread infection. Go start another (crap) thread please!

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 03:30 PM

Jim in one sentence you say -its about racism, not racists.
then in the next sentence you call them slimeballs. I think theres a slight inconsistency there.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,The Length
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 03:46 PM

Jim your case seems to be falling apart buddy, A lot of these guys you attack just expressed their opinions and they sure as hell haven't said half the things you claim they did.

Now the title of this thread could actually be considered offense. Fattism is discrimination on the basis of weight, it is prejudice against those considered to be overweight. The Occupational Therapist (OT) who treated my mom was a hell of a big lady.

To start a thread or participate in one about Big Occupational Therapists (BIGOTS) could offence some people.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: John P
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 04:06 PM

Ok, back to talking about bigotry in a more general way:
What is the best response when confronted with public bigotry, and why? Is there a response that works well for most situations, or is it a case-by-case answer? Does the attempt to stigmatize the speaker accomplish anything useful? Does ignoring the bigotry? Does an attempt to make the speaker change his mind ever work?

Personally, I have tried all these approaches. I'm currently on the stigmatize side of things, but I hate to go straight there if there is a chance that someone may change their attitude. On the other hand, I've tried to have conversations about this and all of them have always broken down as soon as I scratch the surface of the rationale for the beliefs. People just get angry and insulting when asked to support their statements. I don't feel very good about myself if I ignore public bigotry. Anyone have a winning approach?

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,keith A
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 04:07 PM

"you said it so it's it's your statement and it's racist."

I did not say it.
I reported what others said because it was relevant.
I accepted their wisdom, but it was their opinion not mine.
I had not the knowledge to form such an opinion.

To say that Allibhai-Brown, Ahmed and Safiq are guilty of racism against their own community is laughable, and you make yourself ridiculous.
They ascribed the over-representation of their people in this crime to the marriage customs of the people.
I have no reason to doubt what they say.
What reason do you have?
How can you be so certain that they are wrong that you call me bigot and racist for accepting their opinion?

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Jeri
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 04:14 PM

So what's the current treatment for obsessive compulsive disorder?

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: John P
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 04:51 PM

So what's the current treatment for obsessive compulsive disorder?

In this case, posting a link to the thread and letting anyone who cares make up their own mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Smokey.
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 07:06 PM

I can't see any moral justification in attempting to stigmatise those we perceive to be wrong by means of name-calling, only personal satisfaction at expressing our imagined superiority. Calmly stated and well reasoned polite argument or counter-argument without insult or accusation, on the other hand, might just stand a chance of actually changing someone's opinion. Perhaps.

Name-calling belongs in the playground, not in reasonable debate or discussion if it is to be productive. We all know bigots exist, and that some people are bigoted about some things, but there is really no need to point at them and shout 'bigot' - that's no better than calling the fat kid 'fatty'. Real bigotry is self-advertising.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Jeri
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 07:12 PM

Keith posted the following:

Here you are, but it is a 2600 post thread!

thread.cfm?threadid=135090&messages=2602&page=1&desc=yes

But took a personal swipe at someone.
Keith, this isn't going to go on like that thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 11:30 PM

You have 'bigots' and people who draw conclusions based on FACTS, but are not bigoted, but who are called 'bigots'. So, the question is, "What do you call people who are 'bigoted' against people with FACTS? Are they 'bigots', or are the people just bigoted against bigots, bigots themselves??"

I think you might stop, and give it a rest, find out what the FACTS are, and form an opinion, based on those FACTS, about ANY given subject!!!

Besides, its a far more scientific approach! Hope that doesn't intrude on your bigotry against FACTS!!....(created by political idealism).

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Smokey.
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 11:55 PM

Are they actual factual facts, or just alleged facts? Some facts are fictitious and some have fractured factuality. Look mother, I'm gibbering.

Surely bigotry is bigotry, regardless of who is right or wrong?

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Sep 11 - 12:22 AM

Smokey: "Are they actual factual facts, or just alleged facts? Some facts are fictitious and some have fractured factuality. Look mother, I'm gibbering."

YOU HAVE JUST DESCRIBED THE ENGINE BEHIND POLITICAL 'FACTIONING' BY THE MANIPULATORS OF OUR SYSTEM!!

Kudos, Smokey!

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Smokey.
Date: 10 Sep 11 - 12:26 AM

Hee hee..

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Sep 11 - 12:48 AM

..and, of course factions from both sides are indoctrinated to point the finger, at all the other factions from the other side, or even within your own party!!!...Its calisthenics, for 'bigot' name calling training!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Sep 11 - 01:02 AM

Meanwhile..back at the Washington Ranch, the manipulators LOVE it, because in the meantime, they're robbing us blind!...Then, they'll give Wall Street the A-O-K to do it, too....for a fee..and a law...and a new regulation...and a new tax, or surcharge....why not? None of them are bigoted against GREEN!!!....and YOU are NOT a race, creed or color, you are just a number. The race, creed or color animosity is just for the peons to occupy their time with, so they can think they are 'useful'!!...Send more money!...We'll even promise you a job!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Smokey.
Date: 10 Sep 11 - 01:12 AM

Little wonder then, that society appears to be facked.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,Guset from Sanity
Date: 10 Sep 11 - 01:25 AM

Then as MUSICIANS, we put a finger here, one there, and this one here, and these two there...hit the chord, and say, YUK !!..that sounded too black!!...or homosexual...or middle eastern...
I DON'T think s-o-o-o-o!!....Then, the other frustrated 'musicians' call you 'bigoted', because they SHOULD be practicing their craft, and just are too, occupied looking for people to call 'bigots'!

Meanwhile, their ax just sits there, waiting to vibrate WONDERFUL things into the air, and into existence, but has to wait till the 'musician' shuts the fuck up, and reaches into their hearts, the better part of their hearts, and manifest HARMONY.......but their too distracted from even remembering what that was!!!!

Then we have to hear(read) their crap!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Smokey.
Date: 10 Sep 11 - 02:23 AM

They can call me whatever they like as long as it's not early.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Sep 11 - 02:39 AM

Smokey: "They can call me whatever they like as long as it's not early."

You must be bigoted to early risers!...(wink)!

GfS

P.S. I wonder if their getting the point, Smokey.....now only if they were the 'right' race....

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Sep 11 - 02:50 AM

.....and have all the 'right' ...or 'left' thoughts, and attitudes........just so long as they don't relate on that spiritual experience!...Watch out! You might get smacked by a 'bigoted Christian'!...even worse, a Buddhist!
Damn Spiritual People!!....The ALL must be BIGOTS!!!....and especially those crazy ones who obey this 'whacked out' guy, who teaches that we should ALL love one another.....Those are the biggest bigots!!..I can tell!! You just got to hate them all! What do they know???
They must be Republicans....or even worse, Tea Partiers!!
You MUST hate them, because they are ALL bigots!!....I know, I asked every single one of them!!.......(Well not really, I didn't REALLY have the time, nor even a real interest)...sooo, I figured, you might as well hate them all!!!........Damn bigots!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Sep 11 - 03:05 AM

..and these facist pigs too!! You can tell they're bigots.......

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,keith A
Date: 10 Sep 11 - 05:00 AM

Thanks Jeri.
I don't want a revival either.
That is why I asked why someone does keep reviving it.
Not intended as a personal swipe.
keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 10 Sep 11 - 05:22 AM

I was asked not to use the term homosexual by a friend who was gay. So to respect his views, I use the word gay, and i feel a little uncomfortable using the term homosexual.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Sep 11 - 07:40 AM

The word "gay" is what Orwell referred to as "newspeak".....newspeak is a very dangerous practice, it disguises the real meaning of words.

It stops people thinking rationally.
I dont mind being called a heterosexual....that is what I am, a person who enjoys sex with women.
Why do you think your homosexual friend dislikes being referred to as such?.....I am uncomfortable referring to homosexual people I meet as "gay".....I feel it is rather patronising.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 10 Sep 11 - 07:52 AM

I suppose it is a bit like calling my wife an arthritic - it is offensive. We are so much more than our physical beings or medical conditions.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 10 Sep 11 - 08:03 AM

Anyway orwell was a professional writer with an eye on literary immortality - and as such a servant of the English language, and les mots juste and exact meanings.

For the rest of us language serves us. We are careful in our use of it not to hurt each other.

No doubt some of the people of Wigan were not delighted by his portrayal of them. No doubt all he said was true - but its not necessary for the generality of us to obsess about telling the truth, with no regard for others.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 10 Sep 11 - 08:37 AM

I feel that strongly-stated racism, bigotry etc can be dangerous in that they incite others to subscribe to the same mindset. Inciting hatred for race, sexuality etc is (as I understand it) a crime here in UK. One can have private views, which as has been said here, everyone has to some extent, but one should refrain from proclaiming them. I can see how this could be seen as censorship, but we live in society, and our words/actions have consequences. A bigoted standpoint causes pain, fear and resentment, and encourages the bullies among us to join up and attack. This can't be good for the cohesion or stability of society as a whole.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Sep 11 - 11:45 AM

Could you please point out where the bigotry is in what Keith, Sanity or myself has said?.

Our names were brought into this discussion by others.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Sep 11 - 12:26 PM

Big Al Whittle: "I was asked not to use the term homosexual by a friend who was gay. So to respect his views, I use the word gay, and i feel a little uncomfortable using the term homosexual."

Big Al Whittle: "I suppose it is a bit like calling my wife an arthritic - it is offensive. We are so much more than our physical beings or medical conditions."

THEY find it offensive to call a homosexual a homosexual?????? Boy! That speaks volumes!!

Jim Carroll: "You attempted to claim that clerical child abuse was due to the "fact" that the Catholic Church was the haunt of homosexuals."

Well, I guess if the clergy was only molesting little girls, you could call them 'rapists'...but being as having sex with the same sex as each other, Homosexual would be the correct term, wouldn't it?
Wait a minute, I got it....like the word 'gay' it's an attempt to soften the blow...no pun intended!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Sep 11 - 12:26 PM

Big Al Whittle: "I was asked not to use the term homosexual by a friend who was gay. So to respect his views, I use the word gay, and i feel a little uncomfortable using the term homosexual."

Big Al Whittle: "I suppose it is a bit like calling my wife an arthritic - it is offensive. We are so much more than our physical beings or medical conditions."

THEY find it offensive to call a homosexual a homosexual?????? Boy! That speaks volumes!!

Jim Carroll: "You attempted to claim that clerical child abuse was due to the "fact" that the Catholic Church was the haunt of homosexuals."

Well, I guess if the clergy was only molesting little girls, you could call them 'rapists'...but being as having sex with the same sex as each other, Homosexual would be the correct term, wouldn't it?
Wait a minute, I got it....like the word 'gay' it's an attempt to soften the blow...no pun intended!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Sep 11 - 12:35 PM

The majority of the sexual abus was against teenage youths between eleven and fourteen and young adults between fourteen and seventeen.
This was not paedophilia, but simple homosexual abuse by male clerics.
Homosexuals are over represented in the priesthood, some studies reckon between 20 and 30%...probably due to the celicaby rule.
I blame the Church for the continuation of this rule, which encourages so many homosexuals to join the priesthood

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,999
Date: 10 Sep 11 - 12:41 PM

Boom boom:

I have a headache from reading this thread
I have a palpitation baby stuck in my head
Three miles of fix it with a needle and thread
Five days of dieting on water and bread
Another day filled with see what he said
I need a pillow and an hour in bed