: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
quoted by Otto
If you hate or even strongly dislike a group of people and lump them all into one category because of their color, sexual preference, religion, beliefs, politics, whatever, you are by definition a bigot.
There seems to be an idea that as long as your predudices are righteous then you’re not really a bigot. Every bigot thinks their reasons are justified. None actually are.
Returning bigotry for bigotry doesn’t help.
I think cricetus made an important statement when he spoke of attacking the person instead of the arguement.
I’m really not that unrealistic although it may seem like it to you. It’s about expecting more from myself as well as others. It’s about recognizing my own failings at least as much as I criticize theirs.
So, if I hate all white supremacists, that makes me a bigot? By your definition, I would be, but by your definition, being a bigot would not necessarily be a bad thing, depending on the object of your bigotry.
As goofy as that sounds yes. Doesn’t that fit the definition?
Have you ever seen the movie American X? Do you think a long term hate monger supremacist is the same as a confused angry teenager supremacist who is only trying to fit in? Do they deserve the same level of condemnation?
I think being a bigot is a bad thing but certainly there are different levels. Some levels are pretty normal, common and not much to worry about. I hate Muslims has a different ring than I hate phone solicitors.
Most of us can expect to be opinionated about certain things, or prejudice, intolerant at times. That’s why we should be cautious about our judgement of others.
It fits your definition, certainly, but I think the way you’re using the word is so broad as to render it meaningless.
One of my favorite movies. And I think all the characters in that movie deserve the same basic level of condemnation. Some of them deserve more, but there is absolutely no excuse for the beliefs they espouse. None what so ever. But I don’t think that hating a racist is at all morally equivalent to hating a race. The racist seeks to impose political, financial, or physical harm on another party who has never offered him insult. The anti-racist is responding to an unprovoked threat posed by the racist. Hatred is, I think, an entirely appropriate response in that circumstance.
Well, certainly. Muslims practice a beautiful and fascinating religion with a long and glorious history. Telemarketers are the bottom-feeding scum of the Earth. It’s perfectly natural to hate the latter.
Maybe, but at some point you have to take a stand, or your morality is nothing more than spineless equivocating. There are a ton of issues I’m willing to agree to disagree, to compromise, or to accept opposing positions as valid. Homophobia is not one of them. It’s beyond the pale, as far as I’m concerned.
Perhaps. Maybe it reveals a subtlety of meaning that is uncomfortable. If I hate those fucking bigots then I don’t want to consider myself one.
I agree the motivation is different, and there’s a self defense quality to resisting certain forms of bigotry. Hatred I think is a normal human response but I think it is damaging in any form. Resisting it , and trying to find a place within ourselves where we can stand up for what we believe without it, is in our own best interest, as well as doing what is best for the society we live in.
Very funny . That does get a big
I agree. Moral relativity is not an excuse to avoid taking a stand. I think it’s possible to take a stand and vigorously pursue our cause without buying into the hatred. The process of finding that place within ourselves requires action.
You mentioned earlier the legal and financial devistation caused. In another thread about gay marriage I read a couple of stories about long term partners who are shut out financially when one dies. Aren’t there ways to avoid that? Wouldn’t a will resolve that issue?
To put it basically, a will says exactly where you want your property to go when you die. Problem is, (From the site:) “There are two major drawbacks to using a simple will as your primary estate planning device. First, ANY PROPERTY PASSING TO YOUR PARTNER, FAMILY, FRIENDS OR OTHER BENEFICIARY PURSUANT TO A WILL IS SUBJECT TO THE COSTLY AND TIME-CONSUMING PROCESS OF PROBATE. Secondly, a will can, and frequently is, contested by the family of the decedent, especially if they have not come to terms with the decedent’s choices during life. In addition, a will is public. Anyone can go to the courthouse and see your will after you die.”
Yes, but in fact, not in the case of parents, vs their child, and his legally (surretly) married spouse. Only in the case of divorces, and the couple in question’s children. This is why congresses wanted to change the laws in the Terri affair. He had a right to carry out her wishes. Her parents had no right in the case.
P.S. In case you are afraid that without a quote, people will not understand what you are talking about, I ask that you quote me, but put in snips highlighting the relevant section, like above.
I agree with regard to color, sexual preference or religion. Discrimination based on political affilliations or other personal choices does not bring in the bigot title.
Does not wanting to associate with smokers because you don’t like the smell make you a bigot?
Does voting along party lines make you a bigot?
Granted I am much harder on issues involving religious bigotry because as far as I am concerned religion is a choice and something you are allowed to change. Enforcing your choices on others who do not share your choice is bullshit.
As scott said, wills can be broken. And, of course, not everyone has a will. If you’re still young, and your partner dies unexpectedly… Not a lot of people in, say, their thirties have thought to make a will.
actually it does by the technical definition. You’ll find politics listed under several defininitions such as dictionary.com I think in common use it tends to have stronger connotations than the technical definition. You’ll see intollerant of others listed in most definitions. I think we have come to see it as intollerance and animosity toward some group. I would also add the word irrational. It’s an animosity without any rational reason toward some group.
Nope, thats a pretty rational reason.
If you vote party lines because you approve of the party platform then thats not irrational. There is however lots of irrational crap that goes on in politics. All Dems are liberal bleeding hearts is an irrational statement. All pubbies are money grubbing polluters is another one.
We were discussing earlier if those who hate bigots are themselves bigots. I think it could be argued successfully that having feelings of intollerance and animosity toward bigots is not nessecarily irrational. What seems irrational to me is to percieve them as all the same. All conservative christians are homophobes or something like that.
I’ve thought about this issue in the past, and I have come up with the conclusion that being intolerant of bad things does not make you intolerant - it makes you a good person. The trouble here is the defining of “bad things.” I believe some things are objectively bad - it doesn’t matter who you are, it is still a bad thing. Very few things fit in this category - child abuse would be one of them. Homosexuality is not.
I find it very interesting that cosmosdan deflected the fact that he was fdefending the “right” of this company to use anti-gay bigotry and slanders against other businesses to sell its service.
After denying that this company was doing these things, he turned things into I and others being bigots against Christians.
This is the tack that Karl Rove and the current Christian right has been taking.
Divide and conquer your opponents, turn them against each other, and make yourself look like the aggrieved party.
Now he’ll act as if this is insane and isn’t what is happening and that I’m using this as an argument because I’m supposdely losing the argument.
Thats a pretty self contradicting statement but I get your drift. What I see happening is that we all have our faults and flaws. We label a particular thing as “very bad” in someone else while excuseing something similar in ourselves or our friends.
In this case we define homophobia as bad and I agree. I do think it occurs in degrees and we shouldn’t over react or harshly condem those who are basically decent people struggling with some misconceptions.
