|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
 Posted - 04/29/2006 : 16:26:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
While dictionary definitions of words may lag a few years behind the times, the compilers do attempt to define words as they're being used by the general populace. This gives us a modicum of evidence that for most people, the word 'bigot' does not include implications of viciousness or hate.
Yeah I guess so but nonetheless is 'a community intolerant of crime' really a bigoted community? I thought the definition was way off due to that but maybe not.
quote:
1) Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs.
2) Opposed to the inclusion or participation of those different from oneself, especially those of a different racial, ethnic, or social background.
3) Unable or unwilling to endure or support: intolerant of interruptions; a community intolerant of crime.
It just seems to water the term 'bigot' down so much that it's not even a negative thing anymore.
quote:
To inject a bit of humor which is particularly apt:Bigot: One who is obstinately and zealously attached to an opinion that you do not entertain.
- Ambrose Bierce, The Cynic's Word Book, 1906 (later The Devil's Dictionary)
That's pretty good.  |
 |
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2006 : 17:03:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Snake
Because people who don't get things the way they want, they call others names to make things worse than they are and change the spotlight to a different subject.
It's exactly what's happening with the illegal aliens in the USA who should be arrested and sent back but NO, they want to turn the situation around to those who know they are criminals, and call them racists to take away the fact that they are wrong.
It's easy to call someone a bigot or any other name when a person has their own flaws too.
I'm going shopping!
Snake I do appreciate your contibutions. Your ability to stir the pot keeps things interesting, but in all honesty you'd be someone who I'd say qualifies as a bigot. You clearly hate illegals and women and I guess anyone and anything else that doesn't fit into your narrow worldview. If it were up to regressive people like you women wouldn't get to vote and the US would never have emerged from slavery.
Sorry for ranting but damn, show a little compassion for those less well off than you. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2006 : 17:47:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
Yeah I guess so but nonetheless is 'a community intolerant of crime' really a bigoted community? I thought the definition was way off due to that but maybe not.
...
It just seems to water the term 'bigot' down so much that it's not even a negative thing anymore.
Thinking about it, I have to agree with your points. I think I'll switch to "intolerant, overbearing, self-righteous moralists" to describe the "Day of Truth" crowd, 'cause I'm no longer sure that there is a good, single-word descriptor for them. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2006 : 18:55:23 [Permalink]
|
Matt wrote: quote:
Well it depends which books you read though doesn't it? The books that you read might be dismissed as propaganda by them. Just as you probably throw out those watchtower tracts without reading them.
That's where critical thinking skills need to come into play. I know, I know, some people are just smarter or better educated than others. There is a gray areas there. quote:
I guess I just don't understand why everything that that stands in the way of gay rights must fit under the lable 'bigot'. Some things just don't rise to that level in my opinion.
I'm not quite sure how to respond to this. What if it was you, or someone close to you, whose equal rights were being blocked? I read the stories, seen the faces, heard the voices, of people who have suffered emotional and financial hardship because of this inequality. That anyone stands in the way of equal rights for gays, especially when granting those rights would have zero effect on the person standing in the way, just baffles me. It is just as inhumane and irrational as racial inequality.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 04/30/2006 : 14:19:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Thinking about it, I have to agree with your points. I think I'll switch to "intolerant, overbearing, self-righteous moralists" to describe the "Day of Truth" crowd, 'cause I'm no longer sure that there is a good, single-word descriptor for them.
Right on.
Regarding the definition, it probably is difficult to come up with a concise, accurate definition for 'bigot' that encompasses all the different connotations people may have for it. Also for certain words current usage may not be a totally accurate indicator of their meaning. Words that are frequently used as pejoratives for example, or any word that is used more for it's emotional impact than for its actual meaning. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 04/30/2006 : 14:29:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
What if it was you, or someone close to you, whose equal rights were being blocked? I read the stories, seen the faces, heard the voices, of people who have suffered emotional and financial hardship because of this inequality.
I think what you're getting at here is that the effects are so unjust that the people responsible for it must be morally reprehensible or in a word 'bigots'. What I'm saying is that, yes they are resposible for perpetuating an atmosphere of discrimination, and yes this is unacceptable, but no they (most of them that is) are not bigots.
There is an emotional need for victims to demonize those responsible. It can be hard to understand how those responsible for an injustice could possibly be decent moral people, yet in fact, usually, most of them are.
quote:
That anyone stands in the way of equal rights for gays, especially when granting those rights would have zero effect on the person standing in the way, just baffles me. It is just as inhumane and irrational as racial inequality.
I know it just seems crazy. Why would anyone oppose equal rights for gays? It gets my ire up sometimes just thinking about it.
Maybe try thinking about it this way. Assume most fundamentalists are not bigots, but collectively they do create an atmosphere of discrimination against gays. Now since we are assuming they are not bigots we can appeal to their moral natures. This gives us an additional option that wouldn't be available if we just assumed that they were morally dispicable. We can now talk about the effects of discrimination, make movies and such about it, and gay men and women can tell their stories. Over time attitudes will change and have been changing. And the swamp of discrimination in which bigots flourish will slowly but surely dry up.
I know though that progress can be achingly slow, and at times (especially in the US) it seems to be going backwards. All I can say is, we've already come a long way. Keep up the good fight. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 04/30/2006 : 15:30:38 [Permalink]
|
Matt wrote: quote:
This gives us an additional option that wouldn't be available if we just assumed that they were morally dispicable.
I've made it pretty darn clear that I don't consider all "bigots" to be morally dispicable. I've made it pretty darn clear that I'm using a textbook definition of "bigot" as someone who endorses intolerance of a group of people without rational cause. You are insisting that I use your definition of "bigot". I will not. We can debate forever whether using the word "bigot" as I have does more harm or help to the cause of gay rights, but the bottom line is we can't know for sure and we have to make decisions about these things. I'm not asking you to agree with my decision, but at least admit that I'm being just as rational as you about this issue.
Frankly I find it really sad that this conversation would turn into a debate over the word "bigot". While most skeptics seem to support gay rights, few seem to do a thing about it, and most seem to think the issue has already taken care of itself. But there is a lot of serious discrimination still going on, and the gay rights movement is in danger of moving backwards because of the religious right. This is demonstratable by polls and facts. Are we really going to sit here and argue over the definition of the word "bigot"?
Edited to remove weak modifiers and for clarity |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 04/30/2006 15:35:48 |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 04/30/2006 : 16:24:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Matt wrote: quote:
This gives us an additional option that wouldn't be available if we just assumed that they were morally dispicable.
I've made it pretty darn clear that I don't consider all "bigots" to be morally dispicable. I've made it pretty darn clear that I'm using a textbook definition of "bigot" as someone who endorses intolerance of a group of people without rational cause.
Don't get upset. Maybe I made a mistake. If so then I apologise. I wasn't trying to imply that you personally use the word 'bigot' in that fashion. Frankly up until this post I wasn't clear on precisily how you used the term so I don't see how I could have taken it into consideration. If bigot means "someone who endorses intolerance of a group of people without rational cause" to you then so be it. That definition doesn't seem to accurately discriminate between bigots and non-bigots to me though.
quote:
You are insisting that I use your definition of "bigot". I will not.
I'm not insisting that you use my definition. It does appear to be an issue though. We obviously won't agree if we are using different definitions.
quote:
We can debate forever whether using the word "bigot" as I have does more harm or help to the cause of gay rights, but the bottom line is we can't know for sure and we have to made decisions about these things.
Yes this is a minor issue overall. I just think it may be a stumbling block to some who would otherwise embrace the movement is all.quote:
I'm not asking you to agree with me, but at least admit that I'm being just as rational as you about this issue.
Absolutely! Yes you are being rational. I apologise. My post must really have missed the mark to give you the impression that I thought you were being irrational.
quote:
Frankly I find it really fucking sad that this conversation would turn into a debate over the word "bigot". While most skeptics seem to support gay rights, few seem to do a damn thing about it, and most seem to think the issue has already taken care of itself. But there is a lot of serious discrimination still going on, and the gay rights movement is in danger of moving backwards because of the religious right. This is demonstratable by polls and facts. Are we really going to sit here and argue over the definition of the word "bigot"?
As silly as it seems to haggle about definitions when there is so much important work to be done, definitions are the basis of language and communication. If even we who share so much in common can't find a common ground on such a trivial matter, how much harder is going to be to establish a dialogue with bible-thumping fundies?
To be honest I'm a bit bewildered that you seem to take offence so quickly. I'm certainly not perfect, but I was not trying to cause offence. I would hope that you would look at my overall tone and not pick out specific bits of what I'm saying to be offended by. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 04/30/2006 : 16:40:05 [Permalink]
|
Matt, I know you've taken a polite tone. I agree with you that not all people morally opposed to homosexuality are bigots. I'm simply contending that if they endorse legislated discrimination, that qualifies as bigotry. This says nothing about such peoples morals beyond the gay issue, or even about their character in general. It is specific to that action.
I looked up "bigotry" in Wikipedia, and I think think I've been using it in the most commonly accepted form: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry quote:
Bigot is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to his or her prejudices even when these prejudices are challenged or proven to be false, often advocating and defending these prejudices in a rude and intolerant manner. Forms of bigotry may have a related ideology or worldview such as racism, religion, nationalism or homophobia or Islamophobia.
The part about "even when these prejudices are challenged or proven to be false" is what I mean when I say "without rational cause". And while it says "often...in a rude and intolerant manner", that is not a necessary component. One could love gay people as people, and speak in a very kind tone, but if what they are speaking about is how gays shouldn't be able to adopt or get married, that is a form of textbook bigotry.
I don't think we should lighten the rhetoric when it is accurate. It should be called what it is. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 04/30/2006 : 17:23:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
I looked up "bigotry" in Wikipedia, and I think think I've been using it in the most commonly accepted form: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry quote:
Bigot is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to his or her prejudices even when these prejudices are challenged or proven to be false, often advocating and defending these prejudices in a rude and intolerant manner. Forms of bigotry may have a related ideology or worldview such as racism, religion, nationalism or homophobia or Islamophobia.
The part about "even when these prejudices are challenged or proven to be false" is what I mean when I say "without rational cause". And while it says "often...in a rude and intolerant manner", that is not a necessary component. One could love gay people as people, and speak in a very kind tone, but if what they are speaking about is how gays shouldn't be able to adopt or get married, that is a form of textbook bigotry.
I don't think we should lighten the rhetoric when it is accurate. It should be called what it is.
That definition is very different from my understanding of the term. But let's agree to use it.
First off, it's a pejorative. Basically an insult. Second, I don't think it means anything more precise than 'obstinate'. It's just a more emotionally charged way of saying it. |
| Edited by - dv82matt on 04/30/2006 17:30:02 |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2006 : 01:45:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
You clearly hate illegals
I guess you wouldn't be really upset if you waited your turn and it cost you a lot of time and money to become a citizen and be proud to live here. Yet others come here, forge documents, don't get auto insurance or licenses and otherwise clog up the system so kids can't get a proper education. Yeah, I hate it when people break the law and then have the nerve to demand RIGHTS!Or be catered to because they don't bother to learn the language well enough. We waited, and it makes me angry that some people think they have more rights than others who really have rights.
quote:
Sorry for ranting but damn, show a little compassion for those less well off than you.
That's right I have no compassion for cheaters. BTW, how are they 'less well off than' me? I don't think you know me that well.
And if you think I'm the only one who thinks like that, I know many aliens from various countries and of all the ones I've talked to so far, they feel the same way. Including my 'room mate' who learned to speak English BEFORE he came here. How many legal aliens do you know who think it's ok that illegals demand rights that they don't deserve? I'd really like to know. Maybe my friends are different!
|
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2006 : 11:12:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Snake
I guess you wouldn't be really upset if you waited your turn and it cost you a lot of time and money to become a citizen and be proud to live here. Yet others come here, forge documents, don't get auto insurance or licenses and otherwise clog up the system so kids can't get a proper education. Yeah, I hate it when people break the law and then have the nerve to demand RIGHTS!Or be catered to because they don't bother to learn the language well enough. We waited, and it makes me angry that some people think they have more rights than others who really have rights.
You're too hung up about your rights and with blaming illegals for your problems. Other than entering the country illegally many are otherwise law abiding. Why do you hate them so much?
quote:
That's right I have no compassion for cheaters. BTW, how are they 'less well off than' me? I don't think you know me that well.
Because they have fewer rights. Because they must live in fear of being deported. Because they don't have access to many of the same facilities and services that you do.quote:
And if you think I'm the only one who thinks like that, I know many aliens from various countries and of all the ones I've talked to so far, they feel the same way. Including my 'room mate' who learned to speak English BEFORE he came here. How many legal aliens do you know who think it's ok that illegals demand rights that they don't deserve? I'd really like to know. Maybe my friends are different!
Do they hate them like you do Snake? If you want to argue that it's a bad or unfair situation then do so. Just try to be more aware of the plight many illegals find themselves in. Most are more deserving of compassion than scorn and hate. |
| Edited by - dv82matt on 05/01/2006 11:34:24 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2006 : 11:39:24 [Permalink]
|
Snake wrote: quote:
I guess you wouldn't be really upset if you waited your turn and it cost you a lot of time and money to become a citizen and be proud to live here. Yet others come here, forge documents, don't get auto insurance or licenses and otherwise clog up the system so kids can't get a proper education. Yeah, I hate it when people break the law and then have the nerve to demand RIGHTS!Or be catered to because they don't bother to learn the language well enough. We waited, and it makes me angry that some people think they have more rights than others who really have rights.
Don't be ignorant. Everyone knows that foreigners of different incomes and from certain countries have varying chances of getting into this country, even just to visit, and many have zero chance of doing it legally. That is why they risk their lives doing it illegally.
You make it sound like they are lazy.
(Edited to add the last sentence.) |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 05/01/2006 11:40:40 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2006 : 11:46:03 [Permalink]
|
Matt wrote: quote:
That definition is very different from my understanding of the term. But let's agree to use it.
I have been hypocritical here, insisting that you use my definition. Sorry about that. I do think your definition is legitimate in that it is also commonly used.
quote:
First off, it's a pejorative. Basically an insult.
Pejorative yes, but not basically an insult. "Fascist" is a pejorative term too, but if we accuse someone of being one, and it is an accurate accusation, that is not just an insult.
quote:
Second, I don't think it means anything more precise than 'obstinate'. It's just a more emotionally charged way of saying it.
I don't agree with this at all. The definition of "someone who endorses intolerance of a group of people without rational cause" is more precise than "obstinate". |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2006 : 14:27:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
I have been hypocritical here, insisting that you use my definition. Sorry about that. I do think your definition is legitimate in that it is also commonly used.
No problem. Tain't no big deal.
quote:
Pejorative yes, but not basically an insult. "Fascist" is a pejorative term too, but if we accuse someone of being one, and it is an accurate accusation, that is not just an insult.
I'm just going by the wikipedia definition. I do realize that it's different from your definition (and mine). The wikipedia definition defines how the word bigot is used in it's pejorative sense. It doesn't state how it might be used in a literal sense. What I'm saying is that if you use the term 'bigot' because they fit the wikipedia definition then according to that same definition you are using it as an insult.
quote:
quote:
Second, I don't think it means anything more precise than 'obstinate'. It's just a more emotionally charged way of saying it.
I don't agree with this at all. The definition of "someone who endorses intolerance of a group of people without rational cause" is more precise than "obstinate".
Well yes. I was presuming that we were both agreeing to use the wikipedia definition though. Obviously you are not obligated to do that but it would give us a common ground for continuing this discussion. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
