It is entirely consistent with your argument and that you are unaware of the use of ironic quotes is not my problem.
Here: I will demonstrate the same argument with your own words:
You demonstrate that you simply think a bad thing is “intolerance” without considering any other possible explanation.
Isn’t bigotry defined as not being able to tolerate different views? So aren’t the people calling others bigots bigots themselves by not being able to tolerate other people having different opinions?
No one has established any other realistic description of it.
Given its widespread existence, and even more widespread awareness of its existence, including by definition among the very same people who are objecting to it, ignorance is not a possibility.
You have pointed out examples of politicians, not the least of which is Obama, making political calculations about how best to correct the injustice they certainly do recognize, with minimal backlash. Or do you actually take this “my position is evolving” line at face value?
No one has said that bigots cannot be educated out of their bigotry. That is, in fact, what is happening. Strawman.
Your inability to articulate a coherent argument that withstands even modest scrutiny certainly is your problem. Your use of pathetic strawman arguments, your petulant dismissal of those with the temerity to point them out, and your obstinacy in acknowledging that you have taken a wrong position, rather than reconsidering it, are far greater problems.
Every single attempt at a point wrong. That is amazing even for you.
Surely, Tom, you’ve noticed that your quote I objected to had two different words in quotes, and when you decided to demonstrate it with my own words, you took one of those “quoted” words away. I’m no mindreader: why, when you want to show that you’d accurately represented what I actually said, did you leave out the bit about hatred? And, on edit, WTF does irony have to do with anything here, other than the irony of your claiming I don’t know what words mean, then misusing the word “ironic”?
No. One definition is upthread. Another is here:
You might make a try at claiming some of us are intolerant of differing politics. But to do so leads to absurdities: if I say disparaging things about somebody who runs on the Nazi Party ticket, am I therefore a bigot? (and don’t even trot out Godwin here, because I’m comparing nobody to Hitler). Of course you can critique political stances: so-and-so is a poor economist, this guy is jingoistic, that gal is a bigot.
In this particular case, someone is a bigot if they are partial to folks of their own sexual preference and are intolerant of those with differing sexual preference. If you refuse to allow people of a differing sexual preference to obtain the same rights that you allow to people with the same sexual preference, then you’re acting in a bigoted manner.
Unless you love infinite recursion loops and ridiculous conservative canards, no.
I thought it was not being able to tolerate different people, actually.
So if you call the people who are bigots against bigots bigots, aren’t you bigoted against the bigot-bigoted? A bigot-bigot bigot?
It’s turtles all the way down.
And everyone knows turtles are lazy.
And they take American jobs. Usually at the DMV.
Of course!
I don’t much care for Ruritanians.
I hate Ruritanians.
I hate those filthy Roory buggers.
I am in prison for killing a stinking Roory…
etc.
(To be fair, Ruritanian cuisine can be rather good, especially if somewhat Americanized.)
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Actually, I am not at all sure that your claim for “historically accepted as truth” is accurate; certainly many people would express it that way, but I have seen no evidence that it is a universally held truth. However, even if it were, there is a difference in the situations: Segregation was imposed from around 1895 through 1915, being protested throughout that period. By 1955, there had been an additional 40 years of open debate on the topic. FDR’s segment of the Democratic party was openly campaigning against Jim Crow laws as early as 1940 (though soft-pedalled in the South).
[/quote]
I’m intrigued. Can you provide me an example of ANYONE who supported racial segregation in mid-century U.S.A. who was not doing so based on a bigoted view of “Negros” in the society of the time?
Somewhere in an alternate universe, Captain Kirk said this to an android or computer and it caught fire.
Of course they have, repeatedly and at length. They haven’t established it using your sharply limited definition of bigotry, is all.
Ignorance is, I think, an essential component of bigotry, so saying that people who oppose gay rights are just ignorant is not a defense against the charge of bigotry.
Which is to say, they treated us without intolerance, except on the subject of gay marriage.
Yes, people are steadily becoming less bigoted on the subject. Some people who used to be bigoted, are no longer bigoted at all. This doesn’t mean that they were never bigoted, and it doesn’t mean that the people who are still in the process of coming to terms with the realities of human sexuality are not currently bigoted. Bigotry isn’t indelible. People can get over it.
Utter bullshit. Your own definition of the word doesn’t say anything about motivation. Bigotry is defined by actions, not motivations. Opposition to SSM is bigotry. It may be soft bigotry, but it’s still a member of the same species. And it’s important not to let the mental gymnastics of people like yourself distract us from that. Not because we need it as a club to beat people over the heads, but because it’s necessary for them to understand exactly how wrong they are. If we let them off the hook by not calling their bigotry for what it is, they might end up under the mistaken impression that what they believe is, on some level, acceptable, that we might be amenable to some sort of compromise. It’s important to make it clear that we’re not going to be cool with only being a little discriminated against. By clearly identifying this attitude as bigoted, we can make it understood exactly why we won’t settle for some middle ground
For a long time, my gold standard for most pointless SDMB debate into which lots of intelligent people poured tons and tons of thought and effort and electrons was the question of whether or not Michael Moore’s movies should be considered documentaries or not.
This jumped out at me as particularly pointless because it was a rare case where even if someone had somehow utterly and completely won the debate, it would have changed nothing.
For some debates, that’s not the case. IE, a “normal” gay marriage debate, in which one person is arguing that gay marriage should be legal, and one is arguing that it shouldn’t… if one side actually somehow developed and deployed an argument of truly godlike brilliance, and the other side changed their mind in response, well, something would have happened. Some person would now have a different opinion on an important issue of the day that they might vote about.
But this current argument is just purely semantic, given that it’s an argument between people who basically agree that:
(a) gay marriage should be legal
(b) lots of people who oppose gay marriage are also actively bigoted, and that’s bad
© there are also at least some people like Torn, who, at least the general board consensus seems to agree, is still very clearly in the wrong, but also almost certainly quite willing to treat gay people in his life with respect and honest open friendship, who doesn’t necessarily support discrimination against gays in any other context, and who may in fact support fully-equal-civil-unions. And that’s still bad, but much less bad than (b)
[sub]An analogy I proposed earlier in this thread which I like a lot is that I don’t support legalizing incestuous brother-sister relationships, or legalizing performance art/protest marriages in which someone marries a toaster, but that doesn’t mean that I would discriminate against people who wish to engage in those marriages in any other context at all[/sub]
So basically, one side of the argument is saying “sure, I agree with a and b and c, but I have a here a definition of bigot which clearly fits anyone who doesn’t support gay marriage, and therefore people in b and c are both bigots”, and someone else saying “Sure, I agree with and and b and c, and have here a definition bigot which clearly fits only the people in b and not the people in c, therefore the people in b are bigots and the people in c aren’t”. It’s totally pointless! You’re not (as far as I can tell) actually arguing about what the people in © think or would do or believe, you’re just arguing about whether or not to extend a particular word to cover them… which it might kind of do by definition, and might not, but which in no way actually affects who the people in © are, or (and this is an ACTUALLY important issue) how we can best go about convincing them to actually go all the way and start supporting gay marriage, because we need their votes.
One final point, which I think should let you know where I stand on this supremely silly topic: I just envision a conversation going something like this:
Q: So, have either of you guys ever had to deal with bigotry, being gay?
A1: Yeah
A2: Me too
A1: So I knew this one guy who would spit on me whenever he saw me on the street, tried to pull his kids out of my kid’s class when I was doing after-school-tutoring for a month, and I’m pretty sure he was behind some pretty ugly slurs that were painted on my house one time, and one time beat me up. So… what kind of stuff have you had to deal with?
A2: Oh, nothing like that
A1: So it wasn’t bad names, or physical violence, or intimidation, or trying to stop you from being a scoutmaster or teacher or doctor or adoptive parent?
A2: Oh, no, none of that. But see, my neighbor who I’m otherwise very good friends with, and we hang out and watch sports a lot, well… he admitted to me once that he supports fully equal civil unions, but isn’t actually comfortable with gay marriage. So, yeah, I’m in solidarity with you in having to deal with bigotry!
Mohammed Ali
Nonsense. They can’t even boil cabbage properly.
Everyone knows that the Ruries are still the shoddiest bunch of workers ever to come out from under the Iron Curtain. Hell, all they did was white-out the “People’s” on their official letterhead when they went from being the “People’s Republic of Ruritania” to the current “Republic of Ruritania.”
The Strelsau Stoat is still considered the punchline to a bad joke about automobile design.
I hate to make generalizations about a people, but Russia refused to bring them back in as part of the the Commonwealth of Independent States. That tells you something right there.
Malcolm X, before his hajj.
Heck, the whole Nation of Islam.
D-Bear should, perhaps, have been clearer. The conversation isn’t simply about segregation, but about segregation as it was practiced in the South–specifically, involuntary segregation that denied rights to black people that were given to white people. If we’re just talking about voluntary segregation, the equivalent to that would be lesbian separatists, many of whom are probably not bigots (I don’t know any lesbian separatists, for obvious reasons, so I’m not qualified to speculate on their bigotry or lack thereof).
So: I’m intrigued. Can you provide me an example of ANYONE who supported racial segregation as it was practiced in mid-century U.S.A. who was not doing so based on a bigoted view of “Negros” in the society of the time?
So you think bigot has to be a permenant part of someone’s makeup. People cannot be former bigots?
I think people can fit the definition when they cling to derogatory views of a certain group for no good reason. If something happens and life forces them to look within and examine their attitudes they can abandon their bigoted views.
As I’ve explained. It’s not that. People like Torn who are willing to have a reasonable conversation about what they believe and why should be encouraged to do so. Maybe it’s more polite , or condusive to reflection to qualify and call the opinion a bigoted one , rather than the person a bigot. {employing the GD rule for polite debate} Then the question arises , if I hold a bigoted opinion, does that make me a bigot? I see no reason to duck the truth concerning the flaws in our humanity. Bigotry over a singular issue doesn’t define the whole person, but that doesn’t make it less accurate or necessary to recognize.
Is , “If you call me a name I don’t like , I refuse to consider your position” a superior position. Or to follow the Christian lead, “I don’t hate the bigots, I just hate their bigoted activity”