“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo
When do minority opinions become so correct and true that those who hold them can call those who don’t “bigots”?
Does this qualify? Sure seems like it to me. The people that often speak out the loudest about racism ironically tend to have their own racist tendencies in the opposite direction. It's interesting that referring to something as bigotry only flows in one direction -- popular opinion.
It therefore stands to reason that what we refer to as "bigotry" often is nothing more than opinion in the opposite direction of what was claimed to be bigotry in the first place.
Combating bigotry with more bigotry makes about as much sense as combating racism with racism: See Affirmative Action for details.
Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : typo
“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo
The notion of anything (more-or-less) goes - so long as it doesn't compromise the freedom of others to activate their own version of "anything goes" is itself an ideology. And an irrational one at that.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo
The fact is that bigots seek to restrict the freedoms of others on ideological grounds.
You are actually making his case for him, even if unwittingly. You sum it up in the above sentence. We have freedom of speech, right? And even if we may personally disagree with someone else's view, they still reserve the right to their opinion.
By calling someone a bigot, and ostracizing them on whichever one of their beliefs that happens to offend you, you in essence become that which you excoriated him for. In essence, you would be a bigot too since the very definition of the word is a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
If you are utterly intolerant of any creed, belief, or opinion of a so-called bigot, you then effectively become one too. The only real difference between the two is the opinion, but the commonality is that they are both bigots -- of each other!
So the truth is that we are all bigots to some degree, every last one of us, for the simple fact that me being utterly intolerant to white supremacism then makes me bigoted towards them.
Somehow, though, (and this is what Hoot is addressing), some people think they have the title deed to what constitutes as bigotry and what does not, without ever realizing that they are bigots too.
“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo
quote:You can object to gay marriage. You can personally refuse to participate or directly facilitate the act of gay marriage. I have no problem with this at all. That is your right. However to actively seek to restrict the freedoms of others to undertake actions that in no way adversely affect your own freedoms is quite a different matter.
What does legality have anything to do with bigotry? Whether you are seeking to restrict someone's freedoms because you hate homosexuals, or whether you just hate homosexuals, on the basis of their homosexuality, is all that qualifies. Conversely, to hate people that hate homosexuals is bigotry. It really is that simple. And that is all I'm really saying.
I'm not advocating bigotry of any kind, I'm just pointing out that certain people don't seem to understand what bigotry really is because one special-interest group hijacked it and dutifully makes up arbitrary rules about it.
quote:The thing I am objecting to is the practical application of that irrational ideological opinion such that the freedoms of others are suppressed.
But that is not the topic of discussion, and I doubt many people would contend with your position.
quote:My argument is that the only practical and rational response to this fact is to protect the rights of all equally to have their views by not allowing any one group to suppress the opinions, freedoms and rights of any other group on irrational grounds that do not in themsleves adversely affect the freedoms of anyone else.
But they aren't viewed the same. Lets go back twenty five years in time. Lets say that on a talk show they brought out a homosexual and a heterosexual. The homosexual claims that his feelings and behavior are natural, and he should be able to do whatever he wants with whatever other gay man he desires. The crowd boo's in dismay. The heterosexual says that homosexuality is indicative of a sexual disorder, and that the homosexual man needs psychological counseling. The crowd cheers in approval.
Fast forward twenty five years in time to 2008. Same topic, similar guests. Now the reverse is true. The crowd cheers on the homosexual and excoriates the heterosexual. The heterosexual that takes issue with homosexuality is now branded as a bigot.
The point is that society seems to dictate what constitutes bigotry when it isn't true at all. To be utterly intolerant of an opinion constitutes bigotry. In my mind, that is not necessarily a bad thing. To prove it to you, you are bigoted against homophobes. You don't like the message of homophobes, and you speak out against their assertions. Yet, since the term "bigot" is unmistakably used in a negative context, you would never consider yourself a bigot. In you mind, the homophobe is the bigot, not you, when in reality both of you are.
The moral of the story is that people don't even really know what bigotry actually is, or if they do, they aren't aware that they too are bigots by definition. That's alls I'm sayin'.
Does that make sense?
“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo
Bigotry is not based on disagreeing with someones opinion. It is not based on ones Freedom of Speech. Disagreeing with someones opinion is not bigotry, nor is it intolerance. You know this though, as it has been explained to you so many fucking times that for you to bring it up your rather weak argument yet again shows that either you do not read what others post, or you purposefully ignore what is written just so you can attempt to "score" some points for your side.
Flies... Just read the dictionary, and then tell me I'm somehow wrong. Your understanding of a word, which is completely based on societal influence, does NOT usurp the actual definition of a word.
At the least, you tell me what bigotry is. What is the definition?
Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : Edit to add
“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo
In the terms you have defined I would defend your right to be a bigot. But I would oppose your ability to inflict your bigoted opionions on others such that it restricts their freedoms in any way (as long as their freedoms do not in turn adversely affect your own).
You are conflating two different things. If a white man walked up to a black man, called him a nigger, and punched him in the face. You would say, "What a bigot!" and rightfully so. If the white man walked up to the black man and called him a nigger, then walked away, you would still call him a bigot. Why? Because there is no legal basis for it. Restricting freedoms has absolutely nothing to do with it.
In fact, a few people on this forum have called me a bigot for my views on homosexual marriage. I have not restricted anyone one iota. If that is the case, what makes me a bigot if your own qualifier would not include me?
So if my definition, that arrives from the dictionary of the English language, is not the real definition of what a bigot is, then what in the hell is a bigot?
Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : edit to add
“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo
You have failed to define what bigotry is. Look at this vague little gem of wisdom here:
quote:You become a bigot when you ACT (or want to act) to deny someone something that you yourself are not denied.
I'm not denied my race. Neither is anyone else denied their race. In fact, I can't deny anyone their race. There is not a single, solitary thing I can do about their race whatsoever. So by your vague definition, no one who intensely dislikes Asian people can ever be a bigot. The only way I can be a bigot, according to you, is if I somehow deny them their race.
quote:If disagreeing with someone is all it took to be a bigot, then as you state, everyone would be a bigot..and then of what value is the word?
The qualifier for bigotry is not merely disliking something, as you say. I would agree. The qualifier is utter intolerance; total, unyielding intolerance of anything contrary to one's own belief. That is bigotry, and that is what gives value to the word.
disagreeing with homosexual marriage does not make you a bigot. Wanting to deny someone the right to marriage because they are homosexual does make you a bigot.
So as long as someone doesn't want to deny them the right to marry, they cease to become a bigot? If you seek to deny prisoners the right to marry, do you then become a bigot towards prisoners?
Thinking that homosexual marriage is wrong does not make you intolerant. Wanting to prevent two consenting adults from getting married just because they both happen to be male, makes you intolerant.
So if I walked up to a homosexual and called him a faggot, I would not be a bigot. I would only be a bigot if I said that I don't want him to get married.
Now do you see?
Totally!
In summary you have failed to explain what bigotry is. Your qualifier fails, your definition fails, and it is logically inconsistent from start to finish.
Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : No reason given.
“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo
I'm just not denying you what you yourself give to me, in the spirit of anti-bigotry, that is.
Can you really see no difference between not liking homosexual marriage and wanting to deny homosexuals the right to marry.
Yes, there is a very small difference. Unfortunately is has nothing to do with the definition of the word. I can't believe any of you are even continuing on with this embarrassment any longer. Read the definition of the word.
I've watched this thread unfold and have watched you slowly been backed in to a corner, with a narrower and narrower definition.
The jig is up, bro. The Dictionary trumps your very bizarre version of bigotry.
quote:yes...I'd call you a bigot. But just saying you hate Asians would not, in and of itself, make you a bigot.
Then what does, since you actually think I'm a bigot? You will say that I want to deny homosexuals the right to marry. Actually, no. I mostly don't care. However, if I make arguments that exposes weaknesses or inconsistencies in my detractors argument, much like I've been doing in this thread, then I will gladly make the argument.
One argument was attacking the rather nonsensical moral standing of allowing one thing, but denying everything else, which consequently, that is what they charged against people who sought to deny homosexual marriage. The other was simply saying that, in respect of the institution of marriage, and respect to the desires of homosexuals to pledge to each other, and to have the same legal indemnities as married people, couldn't there be civil unions that allow ALL parties involved what they wanted?
Somehow even compromise is even bigotry, which just goes to show that the people that hold the key to what is called "bigotry" is a group who first claims access to it. Well, that's ridiculous. That would be like wanting deny prisoners the ability to marry. Would someone who voted to not allow prisoners to marry be called "bigots," or is there a legitimate reason, that has NOTHING to do with despising anyone, the actual reason why?
“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo
The white guy in your scenario can hate the black guy all he wants. I disagree but that is his right to his opinion. And I would fight for him to have and to express that right. As long as his hatred is not manifested such that he restricts the rights of anybody else he should be free to have any damn opinion he chooses no mater how irrational, ideological or downright stupid I might consider it to be.
I defend the rights of Black Panthers and Neo-Nazi's to march and to protest whatever it is they hate. But make no mistake, it bears no reflection on the fact that they are bigots. They are. It doesn't mean I will take away their right to the Freedom of Speech.
Defining the word 'bigot' might help in terms of clarity but is a means to an end not an end in itself.
So in other words you are not going to attempt to officially define bigotry, which is what was asked of you. Yes, it would help greatly if you defined bigotry, since the Dictionary just does not suffice for you.
By your definition I would defend the rights of bigots to be bigots.
And that is a good thing, even if you don't agree with their ideological stance. I don't think any of us like the views of bigoted Neo-Nazi's. But disallowing them the access to the freedom of speech would be an injustice to the principles of freedom of speech.
As for me, as it relates to gay marriage, I think that homosexuals should be able to retain civil unions. I don't think they should be married. It doesn't mean I hate homosexuals, it means I respect the institution of marriage. But under your narrow definition of bigotry, I'm somehow worse than they most intolerant Neo-Nazi.
I have spent most of this thread explaining why I believe the anti gay marriage position to be inferior in terms of fairness, reasonableness, prejudice, practicality, equality etc
I would agree that this is what you have spent time trying to accomplish, but the thread is about bigotry and what it means.
The trouble with dictionary definitions is that you can usually find a dictionary with a broad enough definition to make almost any point you want.
That isn't trouble, it's the reality of the situation. The trouble with people who use no concrete definitions is that it grants them the ability to manipulate and mangle a terminology so thoroughly that it bears no resemblance to what the actual definition is.
Instead of being confined to a clear definition, they instead prefer loose ones that offer them the ability to make things up as they go -- something evidently FliesOnly is fond of.
quote:But under your narrow definition of bigotry, I'm somehow worse than they most intolerant Neo-Nazi.
Well no. Not really. When have I said that?
I was speaking in generalities in light of what Flies had said. I apologize if I have unfairly lumped you in with that. I did so anecdotally. What I meant is that, according to Flies, we can only be bigots if we attempt to take something away from someone else. Since a neo-nazi cannot take away the Jewishness of a person, or the blackness of a person, they somehow are better than people that merely question the social impact of allowing avowed homosexuals to marry. Something seems quite unbalanced about that, especially when I have no intent to harm a homosexual whereas the Nazi does.
If it makes people feel better about their position to bash mine, as if they are morally superior, it really doesn't bother me all that much. For me to be called a bigot just makes me chuckle. I don't really care all that much because I know who I am.
But I will point out the hypocrisy of someone referring to me as one without the sense to realize they consigned themselves the same fate they used to denigrate me with.
marriage should allow the union of two consenting adults equally without stipulating any conditions as to the colour, sex, age opinions or anything else of the people concerned.
Would you then consider yourself a bigot if you allowed this but disallowed incestuous marriages and/or polyamory?
It just argues that you are taking an irrational and prejudiced position which seeks to restrict the freedoms of others with regard to an action that has no effect whatsoever on your own personal freedoms and that you are seeking to enshrine this irrational, restrictive opinion in law in such a way that the law can must discriminate between different groupings on irrational grounds.
If restricting freedoms is a necessary requirement for bigotry, then judges who consign men and women to prison are all bigots by that pretense. Obviously that is silly, which by the logic and reason you esteem so highly, has no practical application in the real world. It is neither logical nor reasonable.
Why not just let dictionary speak for itself?
Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : typos
“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo
And even if you think abortion is right, nobody is going to make you have one. So what?
This whole diddy of yours, Rhain, is that gays would suffer somehow if they couldn't call their domestic partnership or their legal civil unions "marrriages." You're all atwitter over a single word that means a civil union between a man and a woman. I'll give you everything you want except the word, simply because a tricycle isn't a bicycle (please see Message 132).
So go ahead and call me a bigot for that if you need to.
Rrhain does step around it as if it wasn't there, you'll not notice. So he'll have to do it over and over and over. You are the obstacle reason cannot surmount.
I just thought what Hoot said was witty... not to mention true.
“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo
Prejudice is a two-way street, and it all depends on which side of the street you walk on.
For those wondering about my argument, this pretty much sums it up in a sentence.
Bigotry has an unmistakable negative connotation attached to it. And while we all feel justified in calling someone else a bigot, usually to denigrate them, the reality is we are all a little suspect.
To imply bigotry for someone is to imply something negative about them. But if everything is subjective, then one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
In my mind there is something worse than being a bigot. Calling someone a bigot while they themselves are bigots seems worse in my mind. But, hey, maybe that's my own bigoted thinking manifesting itself.
I'm not suggesting that any of us strive for bigotry, but perhaps we shouldn't assume that it is always a bad thing. Those of us who are bigoted towards rapists are quite happy being utterly intolerant to it -- I know I am.
“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo
Intolerance to rapists is not irrational or unreasoned. It is the irrational or unreasoned differentiation and grouping of people that makes someone a 'bigot'. If bigotry = any intolerance the word bigoted and the word intolerant have no difference in meaning.
Who or what arbitrates irrational or unreasoned intolerance?
“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo
™ Version 4.2
