Disagree. Assuming we agree that unwed births=whores, then the statement that more black women are whores than whites its not bigoted.
If the conclusion is that black women are genetically inferior which causes their sexual immorality, then that is racism. If the conclusion is that socio-economic factors cause it, then it is not.
You shouldn’t “wonder” up front which one it is, but instead let the person arguing make his or her point so as not to poison the well.
Well, the assumption on which it’s based plainly is. Is the fruit of the bigoted tree also bigotted?
What the fuck?? Who here agrees that unwed births=whores? You’re literally going down the path of my second example.
I would say that unwed births = less access to family planning services or education. Or, maybe the high incarceration rate of black men make marriage a less savory option. Or, maybe there’s a correlation between unwed births and income, regardless of race, but black women are disproportionately low income.
[RIGHT][/RIGHT]
Look, it’s the inferences that we consider weaselly and bigoted.
Suppose I own Brand X cookie company and in an ad I said “no one ever died from eating Brand X cookies”. The inference is …but people have died from eating other brands.
Sorry that’s a horseshit thing to say and imply, and to be honest, IMO it should not be allowed. But that’s another argument for another day.
Likewise saying things that you call factual about some people but have a hidden inference is bigoted. Just why are you saying the fact? We believe you want to say the other thing but are too cowardly to do so, so you hide behind the inference. You’re certainly not just spouting off a naked fact like “the sun is a G class star” to educate us.
The bigotry began when you decided to collect negative stories about people in Group X while not collecting the equivalent negative stories about people in Group Y.
The OP mentions atheists as a possible target of facts that we should wonder whether they cross into bigotry. In my opinion, there’s a lot less baggage around anti-atheist bigots than racial bigots, so maybe we could try that.
OP: Can you name a few negative facts that would apply to a substantial amount of atheists? Maybe bring along a cite or two to back up your claims?
“Those atheists, they always…”
And what if you did collect those groups. There are going to be different methods of trying to help each group according to the information you find out. Are the different methods (simply because it is different) to help out going to be classified as bigoted even though they are trying to help?
People are different, the methods will be different to reach each group.
Throwing money willy nilly at problems almost never works. Identifying causes and fixing the cause WOULD help.
The birth control is controlling the symptom, when people really are trying to find out the actual cause of the disease so they can control that.
In other words, if people see the actual “out of wedlock” as the issue, less than the actual pregnancy. Is it because they are teens (birth control is a good solution). Is it because the girls are/were married but that group doesn’t stay married for as long, or some other off the wall issue. Is it cultural, is it driven by money, is it driven by something else entirely?
The symptom? The disease? Is the disease “sex outside of marriage”? I’m pretty sure that’s pretty widespread. I’m having a hard time following you here, to be honest.
And, I don’t see how this is leading towards some bigoted statement, which is what this thread is about.
Can you give an example of something that would be classified as bigoted, even though it’s really trying to help?
I agree that you use different methods to reach out to different cultures and demographics. You’re not going to reach many young people advertising on MeTV. So what? What does that have to do with bigotry?
In the above case, the “disease” isn’t necessarily sex outside of marriage, its the causes for the pregnancies that occur from the sex outside of marriage.
Is it because of lack of education?
Lack of available birth control?
Cultural (think Catholic) who don’t or didn’t used to believe in bc
Partners?
Promiscuity
Or some other .
Now birth control will almost control 100% of the actual pregnancies (IF the parties having sex are responsible enough to be using it, BOTH of them)
In the current climate, it would be bigoted to determine that young black females are more promiscuous than some other group, but why is that the case even if it were proven by fact.
Is it bigoted to blame the Catholic church for not believing in bc?
Is it bigoted to lay blame on a group of (probably men) who don’t like wearing condoms? Or the young ladies who can’t remember to take the bc pills?
The root causes of these questions need to be answered if you’d like to fix the actual issue
If you start off from a place of wanting to help, many of those questions that you HAVE to ask are likely to be seen as bigoted by many others, just for asking the questions trying to get at that root cause.
If it’s the case that black women (why young? I don’t get that connection – children out of wedlock remain that regardless of the age of the mother) have more sex partners than their non-black cohorts, that fact is not bigoted. Do they?
It’s bigoted to imply that black men are too irresponsible to wear condoms or that black women are too stupid or forgetful to remember to take pills. Maybe it’s because of higher religiosity among African Americans (which I believe is the case) prevents them from getting more abortions, right? Maybe it’s because many poor African Americans live in the south where abortions are difficult to get.
You haven’t even determined that these out-of-wedlock children are accidents, and yet you’re assigning some kind of irresponsibility to black people. As I mention above, with high rates of incarceration among black men, maybe marriage isn’t that desirable, but children still are.
Fact: Black women have more out-of-wedlock children <–not bigoted
Conclusion: Their sex partners are irresponsible or they are forgetful <–bigoted, and also not helpful.
Where’s the “wanting to help” part that isn’t bigoted?
Example: On the topic of affirmative action, the black man, being servile and bestial in nature, would prefer hard labor to intellectual pursuits, and therefore should be favored in selection for jobs of this nature…
The speaker actually cares about the welfare of the “black man” and is trying to get them a job they would enjoy, but does so through the perverted lens of bigotry. Typically, this kind of thinking winds up being far more harmful than helpful, and can even times be worse than bigoted malice.
The formation of Liberia is an example of this. Plenty of people thought blacks would be happier being put on a boat and shipped out of the USA. I believe Lincoln was in that crowd.
As with everything else, determining the problem leads to more and more questions. If the child was the choice of BOTH parties, no harm no foul, right?
If the child was the choice of the mother but not the father there is a problem in todays society that put the father on the hook for 18 years.
If the child wasn’t wanted by either of the parents, then that is either a societal problem (adoption) or the mothers problem (abortion) or both of their problem (mother has a child, father disappears and is on the hook for support payments)
In all of those scenarios, only 1 of the 4 has a positive outlook for both parties. Wouldn’t you like to change that?
Would it still be bigoted if you polled all of the black guys that refuse to wear condoms and then attribute that to them? Or is it bigoted even to ask them to answer?
And you were right that young was just an added descriptor but young people are the people most at risk (especially since they also happen to have less income than an older adult on average)
Whether or not abortions are viable, difficult or on every corner, can we both agree that abortions are a last means to that end?
I think the primary reason that you are having trouble seeing this from another viewpoint is that maybe you don’t see out of wedlock childbirth as a problem
FTR, that’s what I was trying to get at as well- even though there may be facts involved, the context and implied conclusions are the important part w.r.t. bigotry. I mean, black people ARE more prone to diabetes. But if you use that to try and induce an implied conclusion in someone else, then it strays into bigotry.
Cite one.
You’ll find plenty where I, amongst others, have said there’s no such thing as biological race. Likely a few where I’ve said that’s an inherently racist concept.
But the completely different thing you say happened? Cite.
I’m not the OP, but my impression is that the OP is looking for facts that are bigoted. Almost none of what that speaker said is factual.
Kearson1, this is getting too specific and too racial for my taste. If you want to open a specific thread to discuss this, maybe I’ll join in, but I don’t think you’re presenting facts that are at risk of being interpreted as bigoted.
What I was asking was more along the lines of - what makes speech bigoted or hateful? (If we take lies/falsehoods out of the equation, that is; only talking about truthful speech)
Facts themselves are generally not considered to be bigoted, but there seems to be consensus that motive or the speaker’s identity is a big factor. That is to say, someone like Obama, or a Klansman, could both say the exact same things with the exact same words, but the latter could be saying it in a racist way while the former would not.
I’m ruling this a violation of the ‘No Scientific Racism’ in that it appears to be attempting to define what facts can be racist and what facts are not.
Please don’t do it again. Read the rules.