I can’t find a way to do a systematic examination of the word’s usage. But I don’t think I should have to to refute your claim. The difference between a fallacious appeal to authority and a legitimate appeal to authority is whether or not the reference is an actual authority. In this case, all recognized authoritative references agree with me. I think the burden is on you to show how this either is not, or should not be the case rather than the converse.
I actually don’t think the two uses are that far apart. Traditionally bigotry is meant to convey intolerance. You include this, and then also add inferiority with the idea that it must be wrong as well. I think the regular usage is in situations of racial, religious, or political discussions generally. Because of that I think the usage gets muddied a little and the precise meaning isn’t necessary to flesh out because the sentiment is the same. That’s why I think it’s not unreasonable to have your position. But given the evidence, the heavy burden is on you to overcome.
It is rarely, if ever, going to be the case that a bigot will make an argument that relies for its persuasive force on bigotry. Rather, they are more likely to make an argument that relies for its persuasive force on some alleged objective good.
For example: “I like [ethnic group] just fine - but, as these statistics clearly show [link], places without [ethnic group] have less crime and more economic growth”.
Now, there are lots of ways to attack an argument like that, but claiming that ‘the underpinnings of the argument cannot be supported without bigotry’ isn’t a very persuasive one. It assumes the very thing you have not proved - namely, that the argument isn’t reality-based, that it is a sham, that it’s motives are irrational and not rational.
All of which may well be true of course - but sadly, in a debate, you gotta show your work and prove it.
I agree that the vast majority of bigotry is associated with inferiority, just as you say. But unless you define any difference as inferiority in the eyes of one of the groups, there are very specific cases where a group doing better is hated for doing better.
Here is another example of what might be considered bigotry without a racial or religious component. There is a lot of hatred of managers among those who will never get there. Dilbert is an excellent example - any manager is either stupid, evil or both. While there are certainly plenty of examples of dumb managers, I know lots of managers who are brilliant and who are great managers.
I think this might be an example of those who subscribe to the bigoted position being blind to counterexamples.
Examples are helpful. In your example, I think there’s something missing–no real argument has been raise. The putative bigot would add: “Therefore, it’s pretty clear that the ethnic group is prone to criminality.”
If that’s what they’re claiming, then they’ve potentially made a bigoted argument. They’re suggesting that in a particular way, the ethnic group is inferior–that is, they’re prone to criminality. Is that belief warranted? If it isn’t, then it’s a bigoted argument. If it’s waranted, then it’s not a bigoted argument.
Someone who’s claiming that it’s unwarranted might well attack the argument based on its bigotry. If they do so, IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO CALL IT BIGOTED. Rather, saying it’s a bigoted argument is a starting point: “Your argument smacks of bigotry. You suggest this group is prone to criminality–but you haven’t controlled for socioeconomic conditions in your analysis. Once you control for this factor, [ethnic group] is no more prone to criminality than anyone else.”
Or you can use the example I offered earlier, about same-sex marriage. WITHOUT EXCEPTION, every argument I have ever encountered against SSM relies for its persuasive power on a belief, stated explicitly or implied, that gay people are essentially corruptive to the institution of marriage in a way that straight people are not. Without this belief–without thinking that gay people will harm marriage if they’re allowed to get married–there’s no case I’ve ever encountered, or can imagine, for preventing gay people from getting married.
So the question is whether the concern about the inferiority of gay people is warranted. If it’s not, then opposition to SSM is inherently bigoted. It’s predicated on a belief in the inferiority of gay people.
I think they’re hated for doing better, when one’s own group is more deserving. This is a weird sub-set of bigots who think like this–but even the ones I’ve encountered seem to think that the hated group are interlopers or intruders of some sort, taking the things that the bigot thinks rightfully belongs to them and their own ilk.
I deliberately didn’t say that bigotry involved race or religion. In your example, if we’re going to call the Dilbert crowd “bigots,” it’s clear that they have an assumption that managers are inferior people: they think managers are stupid or evil. As you state, there are brilliant managers, so the assumption of inferiority of this class of people is unwarranted. According to my definition, these folks certainly hold bigoted beliefs.
I agree I hold the burden. The difference is that I think I’ve offered an initial meeting of the burden: I’ve shown that around here, the word is overwhelmingly used in the specific way I suggest, and that for the searches I can imagine on Google, the public in general overwhelmingly uses the word in the way that I suggest. As I see it, dictionaries served, and I returned the serve :).
If you can propose a better and plausible way for me to meet the burden of proof, please do so. But for now, I think I’ve demonstrated taht the word is used in the way that I describe, more than in the way that the dictionaries describe.
This lacks nuance. I could, as a pro-gay individual, argue for civil unions as the fastest, most amenable way to allow gays the equal legal rights as heteros. I may even believe strongly in my heart-of-hearts that gays should be allowed to “marry” but prevailing circumstance may preclude that as a possibility.
In that context, such an argument is the furthest thing from bigotry. The person who calls me a bigot for advocating such a stance is an ignorant moron and this is why the term needs to be put to rest. It serves no purpose other than to end discussion because you don’t like what someone else said.
I can’t really think of a way. We may just have to disagree. I have stated all along I think your use is a reasonable colloquial use of the word, but for the sake of clarity it should be defined when you do so. I know I have known and interpreted the use of the word as the dictionary defines it.
Ultimately I think it would be more clear to simply attack the underlying premises that you are labeling because it’s less emotionally charged, does not need the free standing definition, and adds more informative value to the discussion. In other words, it’s fine that you do so, but it’s more effective if you don’t. If your goal is to persuade and influence, I think you are better served avoiding the colloquial usage - actually any usage because of the charged nature of the term. That’s just me.
That I agree with. It might be “everyone around here used to look like me, now they don’t” or “those interlopers are keeping my kind of people from going to my college.”
Good. You didn’t specify, but other people tend to. And yeah, in this example the inferiority definition works well. Another example is the technician who is sure that the scientist or engineer he works for is an idiot, and he could do the job much better except for not having the big degree, since the scientist can’t solder as well as the technician can.
This example directly disproves your claim while providing an example of how the word is incorrectly used in exactly the manner that you deny it is used.
The responding poster is making an accusation of bigotry without any evidence that such bigotry actually exists. (And this is one of the most frequent uses of such accusations on the SDMB.)
The person holding for separate legal definitions of same sex and opposite sex marriage may simply believe that a particular relationship that has had one set of definitions for several thousands of years should maintain its primacy in the language and that a new recognition of a similar relationship should have its own language.
The person arguing for separate legal definitions may have some other rationale that has not yet been explored.
In this case, you have simply denied the argument and, without a shred of evidence, (or logic), decided that the person holding for two definitions must hold homosexuals to be inferior. You have provided no evidence of the feelings and beliefs that that person has regarding language. You have provided no evidence that they hold any group of people to be inferior. You have simply taken one statement that they have made, applied your own inability to see a rationale, and declared their argument bigoted. Nothing stated in your hypothetical actually supports your conclusion. It is simply something you choose to believe based on other factors. (And while it is quite true that a very large number of people holding the position with which you disagree are probably bigoted, you have taken a general idea of them and applied it, without logic or evidence, to a specific individual, ascribing a motive in your claim for which you have provided no evidence.)
Having raised the specter of bigotry, (which very definitely does attach itself to the person, not the argument), you have poisoned the discussion because every subsequent argument will be judged in the light of that accusation.
And here without any evidence that I’ve poisoned the discussion, the responding poster has raised the specter of well-poisoning. A specter which, of course, will haunt every subsequent argument.
Really? I missed where you actually accused anyone of bigotry outside a hypothetical, so you seem to be missing the point.
My second comment, however, was based on watching the pattern of similar arguments play out for many years on the internet and for many decades in real life.
I do appreciate, however, that you found a nitpick to allow you to avoid answering my actual post.
Given that I don’t think you addressed anything I said with any substance or evidence, I’m happy to declare that any point in your post is missed, and that I’ve avoided answering any substance in your post. You’ve simply repeated the mistaken claim that the charge of bigotry attaches to the person and not the argument, which, well, bully for you.
That makes sense. Just as you prefer to simply hurl the accusation without evidence, you will now declare that your point is established without evidence.
In my mind, the problem with your definition in #1 is the word “unwarranted.”
Even if we assume that a particular argument espouses a belief that one is superior to a class of people, by your definition, such a belief must first be unwarranted.
By calling an argument bigoted, you make the statement that his argument has no merit. The purpose of GD is debate. Simply asserting that an argument has no merit is not a refutation of that argument, but question begging.
I see what you’re saying, but again, check out point 6–I think I’ve addressed this objection there. Disputing a claim has several components: say the person is wrong, say the way in which they’re wrong, and offer reasons to support your claim about their wrongness. Calling an argument bigoted satisfies the first two components, but not the third one. You’ve absolutely got to offer reasons why an argument is bigoted if you’re going to make that claim. Without such reasons, I agree that you’re question-begging.
But this is true for other avenues of attack, as well. If you say that someone has poisoned the well, you need to offer evidence to support the claim. If you say that an argument is disingenuous, or hypocritical, or superstitious, it’s not enough simply to make the assertion: you need to support the claim. Stating that an argument is bigoted is of a piece with these other statements about an argument: it’s a claim about the specific flaw in the argument, and it’s helpful as a summary or thesis statement, but it’s not the meat of a claim about an argument.
I agree with your 3 points of dissection of an argument (stating it is wrong, the way in which it is wrong, and offering reasons in support of your own position). Using the term bigot only satisfies the first condition; and even that is assuming that we are all in agreement with your modified definition of bigot which only applies to unwarranted beliefs about a particular class.
I’m not sure how the term bigot show the way in which an argument is wrong. By your definition it means that the proponent of an argument has a belief in his superiority over a class of people based upon an unwarranted belief. So the only way in which the argument is wrong now folds back on #1 and requires proof that the belief is unwarranted, i.e. whether the argument is wrong.
Even with your new and improved definition, the term bigoted could simply be replaced with “wrong” and nobody would object.
A “poisoning the well” statement is not a debating tactic. It is a comment on the opponent’s debating tactic. Saying that an argument is disingenuous, hypocritical, or superstitious suffers from the same flaws as bigoted. The terms do nothing to refute an argument. Maybe I am arguing in bad faith or have sex with prostitutes when I am arguing that prostitution is wrong and should be illegal. It doesn’t make the argument wrong. I am not sure I understand the “superstitious” argument. I’ve yet to see a “God said this is the way it should be and therefore it is right” argument on these boards.
A bigoted argument is–and pay close attention to the placement of “unwarranted”–predicated on an unwarranted belief in the inferiority of a class of people. So if I say an argument is bigoted, I’m saying:
It’s wrong.
It’s wrong because without an unwarranted belief in the inferiority of a particular class, it falls apart.
I still need to do step 3, which is to explain what that belief is, and why it’s unwarranted, and how the argument falls apart without that belief. That’s the meat of the argument. But calling the argument bigoted introduces the reader to what shape the argument will take. It satisfies the first two conditions in a way that the word “wrong” doesn’t do.
I partly agree: two of those three terms are terms that I don’t really think add much to a debate.
I’d argue that “disingenuous” is a shitty term to use, since it depends entirely on the state of mind of the debater. In my experience it’s a term usually used by someone who lacks the competence to make a real argument, who’s left with claiming that their opposition can’t possibly be sincere. In general I don’t take someone seriously if they’re reduced to such simple attacks. “Hypocritical” is problematic because a hypocritical argument (like a disingenuous argument, incidentally) can nevertheless be a sound argument, inasmuch as hypocrisy is a trait of the arguer, not of the argument. (If the argument is inconsistent, that’s another matter). “Superstitious,” however, is a decent term to use. It says:
Your argument is wrong.
Your argument is wrong because it’s predicated on an incorrect statement about a supernatural phenomenon.
It does the same thing as “bigoted.” Evidence and argument must still be offered, but it provides the shape for that evidence and argument.
The problem I see with this is that once you introduce step 2 (it’s bigoted), it usually overshadows the “meat of the argument” that will follow. Your opponent goes into defense mode, and the readers who might agree with you tend to focus on that aspect as well (bigotry as the “shape” of your argument). I don’t think it’s the way you would proceed if the primary intent was to persuade your opponent to value your position. Maybe persuasion isn’t the primary purpose of internet debates anyway, but I consider it the more valuable argument process for real life purposes.