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.