The Last Socially Acceptable form of Bigotry

There are all kinds of socially acceptable forms of bigotry.

Homophobia is not just socially acceptable, but practiced and celebrated every day, IME, especially in high schools; as a staff advisor for a high school’s Gay/Straight Alliance, and a mentor to that school’s LGBT youth, I consider myself an expert on that–and I can assure you that it is rampant, even in a school known for its tolerance and diversity in a city known for its gay-friendliness.

Bigotry against bisexuals is probably as socially acceptable among gay and lesbian people as it’s ever been, and not completely verboten in the heteronormative crowd either.

Bigotry against the transgendered has never gone out of style; the popular media, when it mentions them at all, describes passable MTFs as hideous freaks of nature whose sole purpose in life is to trick straight men. Nevermind the reality, which is that gay men almost universally find MTF transsexuals unattractive and that straight men make up almost all of their “market”, sexually speaking.

Any sort of racism, no matter how extreme, is considered perfectly fine as long as it’s couched in purely sexual terms–I recently saw a craigslist personal that ended with “Indians and blacks [sic] need not apply.”

It may not be socially acceptable to “point and laugh at fat people” anymore, but that doesn’t mean that fat people aren’t discriminated against. If anything, discrimination against fat people is way more socially acceptable than it was 50 or 100 years ago; do you think a modern Taft could really win a general election?

Looking or sounding Arabic is grounds for concern among many Americans–just look at the Republicans’ mass emails about Barack Obama.

By the way, lest you think that open racism has gone by the wayside, as a DNC campaign staffer I met all kinds of people who flat out told me that they would never vote for a black person–plus lots of others (Democrats, mind you) for whom that was clearly their motivation, but they wouldn’t come right out and say it.

Sexism is also alive and well, even if institutional sexism is largely a relic at this point.

In my corner of the world, bigotry against smokers and smoking is widespread. (In my last job, I had to change out of any clothing that identified me as an employee and leave any area that recognizably belonged to us before I could light up.)

People have always shunned those who are different, and they always will; more often than not, nobody stands up for the shunned.

I don’t think “large” is necessarily implied. We’re arguing semantics, but I would think that it’s bigotry if you both dislike that woman for being 7’7" and would react similarly to any woman with that particular disorder. I think you’re spot on about the anti-Semitism thing, though.

Yep. Every Hispanic-looking person who hasn’t mastered the English language is assumed to be an illegal Mexican immigrant. I had an enlightening :rolleyes: conversation with one of my employees (who I eventually had to recommend to be fired for his attitude in general–being able to respect people with differences is a must in grassroots fundraising) the other day:

Employee: Sometimes you talk to someone and you can just tell they’re an illegal immigrant.

Me: Really? How can you tell?

Employee: I just know.

Me: So you have an immigration status radar?

Employee: Yep.

Me: Seriously, there must be some clue you go off of.

Employee: Well, I mean, if they don’t speak English, they’re obviously illegal.

Me: What about the Venezuelan couple I met last week who has green cards, even though the husband doesn’t speak English?

Crickets: Chirp. Chirp.

Other than that one time in 2001 when hundreds (thousands?) of Arabic-looking people were being rounded up for interrogation by the FBI with no evidence against them? Assuming that “mainstream” includes a president who’s been elected twice, I mean.

Are you being deliberately obtuse, or do you need a refresher course in reading comprehension? You asked how “furry” can be a lifestyle, and received this reply:

Your response is to ignore the above and go back to your previous statement that furry fandom is all about liking “cartoons with walking, talking animals”, despite the multiple posts from others that make it clear that not all furry fandom is related to cartoons, and then use this obviously incorrect belief to ask the same question again.

There are two five-letter words I can think of to describe you, based on this; one starts with an “i” and the other starts with a “t”.

Mental illnesses do not a lifestyle make. Seriously now. Pretending to walk like you have a tail? Split tongues?

Pretending that’s healthy and OK is something I can’t do.

Personally, I’m leaning towards seven letters and an “a.”

I’m an asshole because I think that all furries are weird and some of them are sick?

Wow, I bet anybody could say that about any group.

So why didn’t you say that before, instead of repeating your previous statement about a lifestyle based on cartoon animals?

I think Miller’s word might fit you better after all.

The last Socially Acceptable form of Bigotry will either be the hatred of white males or a hatred of the religious.

You nailed a big one right there. Pay attention to commercials, and increasingly even movies and tv shows . . . any minority and most females and flawless; the white male is an idiot caveman and the butt of all jokes. White has become synonymous with uncool; if you’re a bad dancer, you’re so white. And everybody has a friend who is the whitest black guy you’ll ever meet. :rolleyes:

Well, hell. Might as well nail my white ass to this cross!

They do it through the hands because it’s easier than trying to drive a nail through the os coxa.

You obviously don’t know how toned my ass isn’t.

Just don’t carry the cross around with you. Then people won’t be tempted to nail you to it.

Still it’s the Os Coxa that’s hard to drive the nail through.

I can hardly believe that a Doper who who’s been here since the year 2000 and has over 10,000 posts to his credit got whooshed by Terrifel.

lissener, the posture you assumed in your interaction with him made you look like a moron (IMNSHO). Now it’s possible that you think I’m a moron, but hopefully, if you do, you are willing to believe that I can be taught. So, for the benefit of this third party, who isn’t seeing it at all, would you be tolerant enough to outline, in detail, your case for viewing Terrifel’s early contributions to this thread as trolling?

N.B. if the post where he said he had been dicking around is your sole evidence, I’d like to suggest that you sleep it off; maybe watch a movie that bears a closer relationship to reality than you’re currently demonstrating a handle on (I suspect that Naked Lunch might do the trick). Otherwise, I await your tutelage with mild anticipation.

Um… yeah! Unbelievable! Who gets whooshed by Terrifel? I mean, getting whooshed by some other Doper would maybe be understandable. But you got whooshed by Terrifel? That’s just sad.

He may actually have slept it off. That whole exchange took place yesterday, I think.

Thanks for the support, though.

I retract everything I previously said about furries, as I am unfamiliar with their practices.

Is this a distinguishing characteristic of furridom? Is it fair to say that most furries feel they have a deep and real connection to animals?

Any commentary on stuffed animals?

Pre-empt: Yes, many who feel they have a deep and real connection to animals do not consider themselves members of the furry community.

It occurs to me that there’s not going to be any way to mitigate the left-handedness of that compliment, so I might as well embrace it:

YES! TERRIFEL IS SUCH A GENIUS OF SATIRE AND SARCASM THAT HE OCCUPIES A PLACE IN THE COMEDY FIRMAMENT INHABITED BY A SELECT FEW, SUCH AS EDDIE IZZARD, BILL HICKS CECIL ADAMS AND ELUCIDATOR! EVERYTHING HE POSTS IS A GUARANTEED LAFF RIOT, AND THE ONLY WAY TO NOT REALIZE THIS IS TO BE EITHER A NEWBIE OR AN OLD-HAND WITH THE MENTAL ACUITY OF A BOX OF HAMMERS!

Or chemically impaired.

Anyway, thanks for recognizing my intention. :slight_smile:

I’ll take you at your word. But just in case my point was lost…

Roughly speaking, I’d say the first group thought that their expression of prejudice was socially acceptable, while the second did not.

So for the second group, certain forms of bigotry are not socially acceptable, though they may be practiced. I agree that this is cold comfort.

That sounds about right to me, with the added caveat that some of the first group probably recognized that racism isn’t socially acceptable (is there anyone in California who doesn’t know that?), but just didn’t care. Some also seemed to have the perverted notion that racism is OK as long as it’s only about the office of the President (“I’m fine with a black Secretary of State, but…”) or as long as it was couched in a concern for the candidate’s well-being (“but the first black President will surely be assassinated!”, which ironically sounds a lot like a cocky assassin’s position). One of my black employees was actually told to her face that a black man couldn’t possibly handle the responsibilities of the office of the President.

I’m glad you’re with me on this; racism is alive and well–and, really, always will be–and the fact that some otherwise enlightened people are a little timid about it doesn’t make it much better. Granted, institutional racism probably can’t breathe in a timidly racist atmosphere, but that’s not really good enough, IMO.

Racism won’t always be with us. It’s not a matter of enlightenment it’s a matter of relevance. Hatred isn’t going away any time soon, but Miscegenation will ultimately put an end to racism, and not because people grow too enlightened to be bigots.