You still haven’t addressed your own hypocrisy in this area that I have pointed twice in this thread and included in the OP of a pit thread.
Now you’ve added free speech hypocrisy claiming to be a free speech absolutist while opposing a congressional resolution that’s sole purpose is to protect free speech.
This thread has pretty much went off the rails, but I cannot think of any conservative position that IS bigoted. Lower taxes, less government spending, more personal responsibility, traditional values, less government control of your lives, less government regulation on business. Agree or disagree with any of that, but its not bigoted.
If one wants to say that being against gay marriage and trans “rights” is bigoted, then one needs to define “bigoted.” When does opposition to someone turn into bigotry? I am against littering. When does that turn into bigotry against a class of people known as Litterers?
You should try reading the thread. It contains countless examples. The first post in the thread contains two.
What are “traditional values”? If that includes opposing interracial marriage, or gay marriage, then that’s bigoted. There’s no possible way that the existence of interracial marriage or gay marriage could harm you or anyone else.
Littering could harm your property and the community – opposing littering is not bigoted.
You gotta be fucking kidding me. If you can’t figure out that opposition to gay marriage is bigotry, the fault is yours, not anyone else’s.
You seem to have missed post #455
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21761276&postcount=455
What IMHO is going on is that indeed, things like the items you mention should not be bigoted, but it is like I told a poster like Bricker many times before: There is a big problem when conservatives do ignore the harm and price to pay when they allow bigots to control the execution of the laws. Bigots like Arpaio then and Trump now already showed that they can decide to do the most assholish or harmful things by interpreting the law in the most extreme ways possible, leading to big messes that even the conservative courts find that they can not support.
In a similar vein - cross burning. When exactly does, “opposition to living near black people,” turn into “bigotry?”
Next he’ll tell us that Kristallnacht was just a mass exercise in free speech and wasn’t in any way an expression of bigotry against Jews.
Especially for rich people, regardless of the harm to poor people
Except for the military, or to cover losses resulting from ridiculous tariff polices
Except for subsidies to farmers and corporations
Like marriage is one man and one woman
Unless it involves abortion, marriage, or drug use
Unless those businesses have a liberal slant
Also don’t appear to be actual things that Conservatives value
You can’t possibly be serious with this.
So, if I understand you, bigotry is only an opposition to the Libertarian ideal form of government that if my conduct doesn’t harm another person, then it should be legal?
If I oppose drug use on private property is that bigotry?
I don’t see the word ‘only’ in the post you quoted.
In what way does banning gay marriage fit into the small government, don’t tread on me, stay out of my life part of conservatism? Seems like the opposite of that imo.
It’s “Stay out of my life while I butt into others.”
Great snippet from one of iiinadyiiii’s posts to (try to) set Ultra Vires straight:
OK, this is getting pretty weird.
I’ll nevertheless try making a little time to answer your earlier post I’m quoting below:
I’m not sure by now what you’re talking about, which makes it hard to tell.
I don’t suppose the current system sets the “true value” of the team; but then, I’m not at all sure that a ball team has a “true value”; see below. The current system does indeed set a monetary value on teams; but it certainly doesn’t do so based on any overall ability to distinguish the different degree of desire that humans in general have to own a baseball team. It can only distinguish between the different degrees of desire held by humans who have similar amounts of money.
Whether it’s a market failure I suppose depends on what you call a market failure. You were the one who said that the market’s efficiently deciding who gets a ticket to the game based on how much each person wants to get a ticket to the game. The market’s not doing that, whether we’re talking about a ticket or the whole team. It’s failing to do what you were claiming that it does.
And consider this:
It’s “simply a part of life” that it takes a suitable physical space and a certain amount of human effort to play a ball game, and a larger amount of human effort plus some talent to play one really well; as well as that it takes some additional physical space and human effort to allow for any significant number of people to watch said game. And it’s even “simply a part of life” that even if everyone got the same access to nutrition, health care, training, and practice not everybody would be equally good at playing ball games.
But it is not just “a part of life” that we have a system set up such that some people can’t afford a baseball ticket and other people can afford to buy the entire baseball team. It’s not even just “a part of life” that we have a system set up such that baseball teams are something that can be bought and sold, let alone be owned by one person. That’s always seemed really strange to me; to me it would make more sense if they were supported by the cities, or whatever groups, they’re supposedly playing for. Such cities or groups could certainly cover the costs by selling tickets, but that’s not the only way it could be done, though it’s one way that could work.
That’s not the way this society has it set up. And I’m not arguing here that it ought to be done the way that makes more sense to me. What I’m doing is pointing out that it’s not a law of nature that ball teams can be sold at all, never mind the amount of money concerned. It’s not even a law of nature that people have to be charged individually for tickets in order to see a ball game. And it’s not a law of nature that some people should get to have literally billions of dollars of income a year while others have to manage on a few thousand. That’s due to the way we’ve got the system set up: which favors the increasing concentration of wealth into a decreasing number of hands.
Would opposition to polygamy and adult incest also not fit your definition of conservatism?
No, bigotry is opposition, hatred, advocacy for discrimination, etc., against someone or a class of people for some fundamental characteristic of who they are.
If that’s not a hard and fast enough definition for you, then that’s tough. Human language and human society are complex, and usually can’t be summed up in a single statement. If you you’re incapable of figuring out what’s bigoted and what isn’t, then leave that to those of us who are capable of it.
So it is “you know it when you see it” and your side gets to declare what it is without any real rhyme or reason.
Anyone can declare it. You haven’t offered any definition – I did. This is a human-created concept, and humans determine what it means.
The fact that you are equating homosexuality with incest and polygamy is bigotry. Sexual orientation is a part of who a person is. Deciding to sleep with a family member, or to have multiple spouses is a decision a person makes. You need to understand the fundamental difference between immutable characteristics of a person and choices that a person makes.
Imagine if we flipped the script and a political party was created to oppose heterosexuality. If that party tried to make laws to make being heterosexuality illegal, or to prevent you from getting married to your heterosexual partner. Would you not consider that political party to be bigoted? If not, then please explain why not?
That someone getting a benefit that they have not earned is a greater problem than a child going hungry.
I believe that they would agree with this regardless of the race of the individuals.