In most of your cases, we can’t tell if they’re actually bigots or not. Let’s look at #7, A young man who thinks gay sex is ‘icky,’ and refuses to discuss it. It’s perfectly ok to think gay sex is ‘icky’ because you think sex involving the anus is ‘icky’ not because you think male on male sex is ‘icky’. This person could also oppose heterosexual anal sex as being ‘icky’ and refuse to discuss it as well. He’s not a bigot, or at least not conclusively so from that one fact.
Enjoy,
Steven
Gay sex is gay sex, Mtgman: Many are the straight men who think getting a blowjob from a man is disgusting; few are the number who could tell blindfolded.
Bigotry or no?
I don’t let december draw me into his little black-and-white world, I don’t see any compelling reason to allow you to either. I’ll answer, or clarify the question, as I see fit.
Thinking a sex act is “icky” doesn’t make one a bigot. You don’t have to respect the act to respect the person. As our homosexual posters have often pointed out, they are more than what they do in the bedroom. The definition of bigotry I use is “different treatment, in word or deed, of a group of people the person in question is bigoted for/against”. This definition of Bigot applies to people who elevate one group over others as well as those who use their prejudices as justification to subjugate another group.
So, let’s look at your scenario again. Let’s do a quick definition of “gay sex”, for this post. “Gay Sex” refers to male upon male or female on female intercourse.
Person A thinks gay sex is “icky”. – They’re fine here. You’re perfectly welcome to think those sex acts are icky. I’d hazard a guess that many people think sex involving animals, or foot fetishes are “icky”. There are people who think eating sushi is “icky” or using your bare hands to handle raw meat is “icky”. Does that make them bigots? Becuase if so, then every person on the planet is a bigot and the term loses its usefulness.
Person B engages in gay sex. – Again, no big deal here. This simply places them in a group who practices something that Person A thinks is “icky”.
Person C is identical in every way to Person B, except they don’t practice gay sex.
If Person A treats, in word or deed, Person B differently than they treat Person C, remember, the only difference is in sexual habits, then Person A is a bigot.
Enjoy,
Steven
Well, I agree with your definition of what a bigot is in #7; but since the sex act itself, at least the one in question, is identical to the one that isn’t classified as “icky,” isn’t that an irrational discrimination, the definition of bigotry?
Ok, it’s still hypothetical, but shouldn’t the logical outcome dictate all non-bigoted straight men happily accept blowjobs from all comers?
Maeglin, for someone who is not well-versed in tautological arguments, may I ask how would you frame Ace’s question?
You said, “In a perfect world, an arrest yielding a conviction would be an accurate measure of criminality. But many people reasonably claim that an unfair number of minorities are rotting in jail due to systemic disadvantage and prejudice.”
The question Ace is postulating, it seems to me, IS predicated on a perfect world. In trying to get a definition of bigotry, one would HAVE to work from the assumption of a perfect world, where all the incredible intricacies of human society are distilled to a few basic assumptions. You seem to be taking the tack that in the real world, justice is not even-handed (and lord knows I agree with this), therefore his perfect world assumptions are not valid.
Seems that you two are arguing about two different things.
I personally find it fascinating that of the 25 examples that Ace postulated, you could not get past #1.
So…how would YOU frame a question as to what bigotry is or is not?
And I have a slight hijack…
First of all, I am a very firm believer in equal rights for all people, regardless of age, sex, sexual orientation, etc, etc, etc…
But, if I were to get a bowjob in the dark at a wild party and were to discover the next day that it was a man that gave me said blow job, I would very probably get very sick…physically.
And I once knew a very nice personable man in anothr state. While we were never close friends, I had no problem being around him, until I learned he was gay. All of a sudden, I became extremely uncomfortable being around him.
So, taking into account the fact that I have actively supported equal rights, does that make me a bigot?
I think it does, and it’s not comforting to me.
Toaster52, I was being obviously facetious. There is no intrinsic reason why maximizing arrests and convictions should be used as a measure of “efficiency” or “goodness” with respect to law enforcement.
Why? What utility would such a definition actually have, devoid of the “intricacies of human society”?
And of those basic assumptions are wrong, what value could the model possibly have?
Because that is the only example he spent any time developing. The rest are just fodder.
I’d frame it like every other reasonable person would. By looking at the nuances of the situation, not by creating a bogus categorical formula. Pretty much the way humans make the majority of their value judgments.
…bowjob…sigh…
Ok, then, Maeglin, let’s have the question as how you would put it.
I’m not sure I follow you. If I interpret your position correctly, you are adding additional characteristics to the hypothetical person in #7. Now in addition to thinking gay sex is "icky’ he thinks anal sex between a man and a woman is not icky. Is this correct? What you’re complaining about is the apparent hipocracy where he opposes male on male anal sex, but does not oppose male on female anal sex, correct? Again, it’s perfectly legitimate to feel any sex act is icky, and it’s possible to feel it’s icky when performed by one cast of players and not feel it’s icky when performed by another cast of players. I think straight sex is icky when performed by my parents, I don’t even want to think about male on female anal sex if performed by my parents, although I don’t oppose either normally, does that make me a bigot?
My definition of bigotry includes some action, word or deed, which the person in question would normally NOT do, but because of the existance of whatever characteristic they’re opposed to, they change their behavior. If I tried to stop my parents from having anal sex, or I spoke against their right to have anal sex, supported laws which would make it illegal for them to get housing if they did it, etc. , then I’m a bigot. I’m not a bigot just for thinking that my dad cornholing my mom is “icky”.
**
I think I addressed that earlier. If I tried to stop some other guy from receiving a blowjob from a man because I happen to think getting a blowjob from a man is “icky”, then I’m a bigot.
Essentially I believe a person should be able to hold an opinion which would be bigotry if it was expressed, as long as they don’t try to use it against/for someone.
Enjoy,
Steven
Like I said. You have a basic definition. I don’t think anyone seriously challenges this. You take particular situations, analyze their mitigating factors, and arrive at a value judgment as you would if you were making any other value judgment.
Could I possibly be making myself any clearer?
…bowjob…sigh…
Ok, then, Maeglin, let’s have the question as how you would put it.
Remember, this is a philosophical exercise,not an attempt to write law that would actually be put in place in the real world.
Mtgman: Well, I’m with toaster; it’s odd that I would be revulsed upon learning information ex post facto about a person from the hypothetical dark room that changes my experience from orgasmic to physically repusled. Even in your post you say this person would “oppose” male-on-male anal sex; what do you mean by oppose? Actively avoid even the connotation? Leave a party when some gay guy starts talking about his boyfriend, because the conversation might soon shift to gay anal sex?
That’s several steps past “icky.” But is it bigotry or personal viewpoint, and are those indeed even separate?
Perhaps there are shades of Bigotry? Perhaps we need a new class? If I’m uncomfortable around Gay folk, (still in this philisophic exercise, for those of you who are a little slow) and if I’m in any position of power, it’ll manifest itself in subconscious ways: The gay guy won’t get as many invites to the ballgame, drinking with the guys, or go on dinner dates – who likes to feel uncomfortable? Nobody.
But at the end of the day, those actions add up to soft bigotry, and the Gay guy’s life is clearly negatively impacted by solely his membership in a class (something your parents are not). Where exactly do we draw the line between “icky” and “bigoted?” Can we?
I’m beginning to think there may be covert bigotry and overt bigotry; and this flows from your last point: Can a person truly hold a view and have it never affect anyone? I think not; I think bigots’ views leaks out subconsciously and it colors not just their thoughts but their actions to certain classes. I suppose if you had a hypothetical person who thought A but never had any actions expose A, I’d agree; I just doubt the possiblity of such a disciplined person!
sorry for the double post.
Actually, Maeglin, what you are doing is giving what you are defining as the boundaries of the question, the parameters of the question, the edges of the questions, whatever and however you may want to define them.
Now…what is the question? IE…“How do you define bigotry?” “What can be considered bigotry and what cannot?”
…as examples…
Again…how would you state the question?
Toaster: I feel your pain.
<sigh>
And again.
I accept the colloquial definition of bigotry.
Its grey areas, as in all things, will be subject to dispute and further scrutiny.
Furthermore, I have had no problem whatsoever with the use of the terms “bigot” and “bigotry” either in my ordinary life or on the SDMB. Hence Ace’s remark:
resonates with me not at all. Upon further reflection, I think several contemporary written cites for this claim are required in order for this debate to have any merit or relevance whatsoever.
I’m not interested in creating another pointless laundry list of examples. Whether a phenomenon can be called bigoted or bigotry is best discussed when there is something relevant, with nuances, intricacies, and real facts. I don’t care about categorical definitions, subdefinitions, and worse, one-sided hypothetical examples.
So, in my extremely immodest opinion, there is no question.
Whoa there! When did I become responsible for explaining facets of your hypothetical situation? You set up the question with your #7, which reads
I pointed out that there could be reasons that he would be opposed to “gay sex” which has nothing to do with the genders of the people involved. The one fact that the sex acts practiced by homosexuals are “icky” to him does not make him a bigot. Then you said
Which I read as “but since the sex act itself, at least the one in question[male on male anal sex], is identical to the one that isn’t classified as “icky,”[male on female anal sex] isn’t that an irrational discrimination, the definition of bigotry?” This would seem to indicate you are now modifying the situation described by #7 to “A young man who thinks gay sex is ‘icky,’ and refuses to discuss it. This young man has no problem with heterosexual anal/oral sex.” Is that what you meant or not?
**
Then we’re all bigots and the term is useless. The interpersonal relationships I participate in can change in the manner you’re describing for lots of reasons, not all of my reasons would hold up to the kind of scrutiny you’re proposing. Some days I’m in a good mood and start up conversations/joke around with people. This can lead to friendship. Some days I’m in a lousy mood and don’t start conversations/joke around with people, even if I would have talked to/joked around with those exact same people on a day I was in a better mood. According to the guidelines you seem to be proposing, that makes me a bigot. I’m bigoted against the group of people I met when I was having a bad day. We made bad first impressions on each other, that formed the basis for slightly irrational minor “subconsious leaks” in our relationship in the future. At least one of us was denied the friendship which might have developed. Is this bigotry?
This is not a useful litmus test.
Enjoy,
Steven