I want to pull this line out as an example of poor argumentation. Look:
And in post 49, I quoted this bit from the OP again to counter Camille’s suggestion that I hadn’t realized the word had an emotional charge.
And later I wrote:
If you’re not paying attention to what I write, it’s going to be very difficult for us to have a meaningful dialogue.
Suppose the proposition is to outlaw handguns. I call such an argument bigoted. (Implicitly stating that the proposal to ban handguns is wrong and promotes an unwarranted belief about handgun owners)
I then cite statistics about how handgun owners are nominally more law abiding and responsible than a non-handgun owner, and so therefore your proposal falls apart without your belief in the inferiority of handgun owners and that your position is therefore no different than that of Bull Conner against black demonstrators in Alabama.
Couldn’t I have said the exact same thing without the inflammatory language of “bigot” and the comparison to Bull Conner? Because all I am doing is making a bald assumption about your motives. There could be other reasons that you are against handgun ownership other than your belief in the inferiority of handgun owners as a class. It’s classic poisoning the well.
Now, instead of debating handguns, we are in a 4 page debate about the meaning of bigotry and how this debate is or is not like Jim Crow laws. It makes no sense to inject such an inflammatory word into the debate. It is similar to a strawman argument.
If you are not going to answer questions asked of you, good to know. Pointing to what you wrote here and there or in response to others is not as helpful as simply answering direct questions. Obviously, YMV. Unsurprisingly.
Yep. The only reasons to use the word to characterize an argument are: 1) classify it in a way that begs the questions as to whether the position is correct or the argument is valid; 2) cut off debate or derail the actual discussion; 3) indirectly call the person you’re debating a bigot (while skirting the rules about insults); 4) imply that there can be no possible validity to one’s argument because, well, it’s bigoted and the person who advanced it is, too!!
Or for the reason I suggested.
Sure, you can say that. And if I cannot respond by pointing out the ginormous holes in your logic, then I deserve what I get.
But of course in this circumstance what I’d do (assuming I were going to argue for the outlawing of handguns) is to argue that, even if handgun owners are the same in every way as non-handgun-owners except for the one obvious difference, that one obvious difference sufficed to result in more harm. I’d need to demonstrate the way in which it resulted in more harm, sure–but I’d show that the argument could be made without any assumption of inferiority on the part of all handgun owners. (For example, I might draw a distinction between lawful handgun owners and unlawful handgun owners, suggest that unlawful handgun owners really ARE inferior to the general populace, and suggest that the only way to get rid of unlawful handgun owners is to outlaw handguns. But this is just a proposed method of argumentation; since I don’t really hold all of those beliefs, it’s purely theoretical, and I’m not sure it’s going to be effective for us to go back and forth along these lines much further).
And then I’d make a face like :dubious: and ask you if you were really serious in comparing outlawing handguns to siccing police dogs on black children, and hope taht you’d back down from such ridiculous hyperbole.
What I WOULDN’T do is to fuss about how now the well was poisoned and how there’s no way to rebut a charge of bigotry and anyway why make the charge and so forth. It’s a legitimate term to describe some arguments, and the fact that it was used inappropriately in this case (in my opinion) should be dealt with by showing why it was inappropriate, not by condemning the word for its descriptive power.
Look, I’m happy to answer new questions. But if you’re just going to repeat the questions asked a dozen posts previously, I’ll need you to demonstrate that you read and understood those exchanges before I just repeat myself. My “helpful” attitude to you right now is limited to advising you on how to engage productively in the thread; once you do so, I’ll answer the new and previously-unanswered objections that you raise. This has been my approach consistently through this thread, and you’ll notice that I’ve responded substantively to several posters who disagree with me. PUt yourself in their company by raising new objections.
And then I could respond by saying that the police in Alabama weren’t siccing police dogs on lawful black citizens, only those breaking the law by demonstrating without a permit. See, the argument is identical and you (the hypothetical you) are a bigot!
Then you would respond at how absurd by argument was because the only reason those demonstrators didn’t have a permit was because the city denied them one when they usually granted them as a matter of course.
I might then say that is similar to “may issue” gun carry permits.
You would say it is not at all similar because it isn’t done on the basis of race.
I might say that gun owners are a class protected by the Constitution similar to race.
You would say that unlawful gun owners are not protected.
I might say that unlawful demonstrations are not protected.
You might say that is different because “may issue” permits are not granted solely on the basis of gun ownership but that the denial of the demonstration permit was solely on the basis of race.
I might point out that there were white people taking part in the demonstrations in Alabama.
You might say, however, that the point of the demonstrations were to further black civil rights.
…
I could keep going here, but you see what has happened. We have turned a debate about handguns into the qualifications to receive a demonstration permit in Alabama in 1963. All because an inflammatory word like “bigot” was injected into the debate where it didn’t need to be said.
Further, it is vague on the definition of “inferior.” Say I support enhanced penalties for child rape. Who is the class that I find inferior?
It is not those who have raped children in the past. My proposal doesn’t affect them. It is not those who simply have the desire to rape children. So long as they don’t act on that desire, my proposal doesn’t affect them.
The class of people (and we are getting loose with that word as well) are those people who actually rape children in the future. Does my proposal mean I find them “inferior” to me?
Not necessarily. I may feel an extreme degree of sorrow for each of them personally that they have such a desire to rape children that they are unable to control. I may feel the old “but for the grace of God, go I” for them. I may consider them my equal in all respects and look for programs so that they can live normal lives. I may oppose all laws discriminating against them for past acts of child rape, and support laws against discrimination against them solely for their propensity to commit child rape. Or, as the poster using the term “bigot” would assume, I may look down upon them from my ivory tower and feel smug in the belief that I am superior to them.
Why is the last and worst one assumed by the other poster when I haven’t made such a proclamation?
–and here’s where you’re wrong. Then I would respond, “Okay, hoss, get down with your bad self,” and I’d be done, because what you were saying was so patently ridiculous that I’d see no reason to further engage.
Which is, incidentally, what I’ll do if you continue to conflate the idea of using correct terminology to describe a flaw in an argument, and engaging in a ridiculously inept application of terms to arguments and then insisting on them to the point of derailing a thread.
In your example, the derailment was caused by the stubborn adherence to a stupid argument, not by the specific application of the word “bigotry.”
You can give an answer to my exact questions in a precise manner, or not. But I’ve no desire to attempt to read your answers to others and try to divine what your answer to my exact question might or might not be. This is true generally and more so now, given your attempt to have people accept definitions and explanations that are new to the world.
But do what you want, or not. It is clear to me, and it appears to others why you are so desperate in trying to gain permission for you to use the word. Your using it allows you to accomplish what you cannot while staying within the rules.
Now, I’ll go forth with my day and watch what must be two racist and bigoted organizations (obviously so, when you look at the % of black players on the teams and compare that to the general population!) battle for the trophy.
Enjoy your hair-splitting and Gordian-knot tying. 
Again, you are not debating. You are simply making conclusory statements and using terms which presuppose that you are right and I am wrong. It adds nothing to reasoned debate.
And, amazingly, you admit that you wouldn’t engage a ridiculous accusation of bigotry. That’s exactly the fucking point that your opponents have been saying. It stifles debate and makes the argue-er give up and move on to better things.
So therefore, even on the topic about the term bigotry, you don’t want to “engage” or debate because clearly you are right and I am wrong. I have stifled the debate by using the term in what you feel is a ridiculous manner.
Are you starting to see why the term stifles debate, and even more importantly, takes the thread away from its original purpose? It has frustrated you to the point where you admit that you would give up on the handgun debate and even give up on the bigotry debate. The argument is thus derailed because you are “correct” and my argument is “ridiculously inept.”
You misunderstand: I won’t engage in a ridiculous argument. Whether the argument is about the use of the word “bigotry” or about whether marrying washing machines is like marrying a same-sex partner or whatever, it’s the absurdity, not the specific word, that’s the problem. A good analogy, or a good use of the word bigotry, is not a problem.
Well, yes. Bone and Bricker and others have debated in a non-ridiculous way, and I’ve engaged with them. But I’m not on the clock; you’re not paying me to debate with you; I’m not obligated to do it if the arguments you make are ridiculous.
And the word “bigotry,” like every other word in the English language, can be used in a ridiculous manner.
Indeed you don’t. When I teach, if Bob asks a question about an assignment and I answer it, and Billy raises his hand to ask exactly the same question, I don’t always answer it; I’ll tell Billy to ask his classmates for the answer. You’re luckier than Billy, though, since you’ve got a record of the answer. I’m not being paid by you, either, and if you don’t choose to engage in the conversation in a way that I find interesting, I’m not obligated to engage with you. And when you just repeat the same questions others have asked and expect your own special answer, that’s not interesting.
I’m not surprised to see you take more effort to not answer than answer my direct questions. Especially since doing so gives you a a platform to mention that you’re a teacher (somehow thinking that is supposed to impress) and to display your pedantry.
And on that, I must say, yawn.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
Call people bigots all you want. Or tell them they say bigoted things. It’s a distinction without a difference, Humpty.
Interestingly, that’s an argument for prescriptivism, and the argument I’m making is the precise opposite of Mr. Dumpty’s. I’m arguing that despite what the dictionary says, common usage is closer to the definition I offer. I use a word as it’s understood by others. In support of this proposition, I’ve offered multiple examples of the word’s usage both on this board and on the web at large. Mr. Dumpty would consider me a linguistic weakling, bowing to the will of the masses instead of telling words what they should mean.
If I’d never explained the difference I was drawing, this would have been a salient point. Since I’ve explained a difference, it’s a longwinded way of saying, “Nuh uh.” If you care to explain why you disagree with the distinction I’m drawing, there’ll be something to discuss–although I hope before you make such an objection, you’ll read the thread first to be sure you’re not just rehashing points someone else has already made.
First - Some people will be and some will not. Some people in your target audience will be. To continue as you wish you would have to believe that the persuasive value using the term is greater among the people who will both be defensive and those who will not, and the negative impact among those who would be your ideological allies does not outweigh that potential benefit. Your calculus may be different than mine but I don’t see that happening. In other words, I think it’s a net detriment to discourse even though it may add value among a subset of folks.
Second - I totally get this. I’ve addressed most of this in my first point directly above. There are many folks who post regularly who I believe will not be swayed by either facts or rhetorical flare. They serve as a fulcrum to present counter ideas for readers. They help as a foil to hone argument. So on this point I agree without reservation.
Third - You have to recognize the irony here. You talk about the social consequence, the dramatic calling out, etc. while using a non-standard definition of a word. I think there are some valuable arguments to be made through shame and social pressure. Not in this setting though. In this medium, I think it’s counter productive.
Consider this thread, and the one in ATMB. Without doing a specific count, I’d say the majority of folks disagree with you. It’s an obvious appeal to popularity so take it for what you will. Sure there are folks that would support the position you’re posting, and there is bias in the number of responses and those who would choose to do so, but if your goal is to persuade it’s important to communicate effectively to your audience. Many of your audience disagree with the method of your engagement. If you can’t get past that part, then whatever message you have is lost from the onset.
The idea that “if they don’t understand me, then that’s their fault” is fine if your goal is simply to speak. But if you really want to engage folks, you have to at least have them listen. Turning folks off because your tactics are abrasive isn’t effective. Pragmatically this is not a viable strategy.
On a separate note, have you tried your tactic in person? During the Prop 8 campaign in CA, I made a lot of effort to persuade the people I knew to vote against it. I petitioned my family, friends, neighbors, and co-workers. I lost friends over it. I argued with them, presented history, appealed to their sense of fairness, justice, emotion, etc. But not once did I call them names, or say that they held bigoted beliefs. Any time discussion went that direction, it was destructive. The people became defensive and it was impossible to continue. Once the suggestion is presented that a person may be associated with that stigma the conversation was effectively over.
I have found the tactic is not beneficial if my goal is to persuade. It is great if I want to attack. That’s why I think you’re wrong here. No matter how you define the word until there is a sea change in the way people behave it will be destructive to discourse.
Nicely done.
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
Third, my intent is to use language clearly, not to shame.
[/QUOTE]
Complete bullshit. But even IF your motivation be as lofty as you claim (“snerk”), the word is simply to loaded. But it appears you’re immune to that reality.
Bone, thanks for saying this better than I did.
I’d just like to add, though, that I posted in this thread before I read the thread that inspired it (the SSM thread in GD, not the ATMB thread). Finally read that thread yesterday, and all I can say is :eek:. I can certainly understand the frustration, and I’ve succumbed to it with anger and contempt on many occasions myself.
Even so, for those who have the fortitude and patience, I think we are better off maintaining friendly persuasion and reasoned discourse without labels, simply because our side has the better arguments. Give the intractible bigots enough rope to hang themselves with their own ridiculous excuses, while allowing those who can change the room to do so without losing their pride.