Yes, you’re right, that’s the concept I referred to. And I didn’t even realize it. What I was thinking was “a person who is prejudiced and discriminates on the basis of demographic identity” from the point of view of the majority, privileged, oppressor identities. “Racist” and “sexist” and “homophobic” all mean from the point of view of oppressor (as in, anybody can harbor racial prejudice against different others, and can discriminate on that basis, but people who aren’t in the majority can’t contribute to systemic racism by doing so). So I’d like to adjust my question to mean specifically from the oppressor viewpoint against minoritized people.
The more I think about it, the more I think “bigot” actually means this to most people who say it today, and not what it meant earlier. I think in common speech “bigot” is the closest. But I only consider it this way by thinking dictionaries are now wrong, which might be fine in casual talk but wouldn’t work in a more official written context.
Speking from a language which actually has one official dictionary everybody agrees is correct, see the underlined part below:
if something appears in the Diccionario or the Ortografía (<– Spanish’ “Manual of Style”) as correct, it is correct.
if something appears in the Ortografía as incorrect, kindly stop doing it. Note that “regional” does not equal incorrect: regionalisms are perfectly fine.
if it doesn’t appear in either, assume that the book is incomplete. You may write to your local Academia or to RAE and tell them about your word or usage. Every message is read and forwarded to the appropriate Letter.
Maybe it’s OK, and I used it in the OP, but I think practically all of us are prejudiced to some degree. I’m hoping to home in on people who are more unyielding, more dedicated to their position and actions. This argues for “bigot”, I guess.
For me, this discussion is helpfully enlightening, as I’m realizing more things about the concepts, and changing my question as I go along. To the helpful people who are clear in their own minds, and/or like word definitions as clear and preferably unchanging, I can only apologize and say thank you for helping me figure this out.
I think most of us in majority identities catch ourselves in our prejudices, such as feeling nervous because of who’s walking toward us on the sidewalk at night, or weighting the opinion of this person over that person, or guessing somebody’s not so bright, because of their identity. And then most of us feel bad about it and think we should get over such prejudices. Most of us would like to not harbor these thoughts.
The group I want a name for is the group that buys into their prejudices and wants to find other like-minded people for mutual reinforcement. More extreme examples would be Klan members, white nationalists, people promoting rape culture, and the like. But also the less extreme people who might say “I don’t approve of the violent methods of X, but they do have a point.” People who are practically unlikely to change their minds, for whom an organizational approach might instead be to exclude them, or convince them they need to keep quiet about their opinions and not bring them here to the organization.
What would be a good name for that?
Thanks everybody, and sorry I’m drifting in what I’m looking for!
I think what the OP is driving at is exactly what Hillary Clinton was trying to describe in the “basket of deplorables” remarks. The fact that she couldn’t find the right word to apply to those who have multiple grievances against people who aren’t like them indicates there’s no precise term for them right now. But bigot, deplorables, intolerants, etc. seem to convey the idea.
You search for a word to label human beings into a group having an attitude you find undesirable, and want to assure yourself that all undesirable persons will be included in the category.
Perhaps an acronym. JELM. Just exactly like me.
Tris
If there is a critic in the mirror, hope that it is a demanding one. If there isn’t, look for one.
The irony being of course that she ends up displaying the kind of sweeping generalisationising that she deplores in the “deplorables”. It left people in no doubt that she’d spot a redneck and shove them in an ideological pigeonhole without further thought.
Not sure which bit there is to disagree with. I don’t think it is a matter of opinion as to whether it was a sweeping generalisation, she even admitted that it was “grossly generalistic” in her own words. So why say it Hilary?
With only just a tad more introspection she’d have realised that she was shooting herself in the foot. It was politically idiotic and hypocritical.
Am I going to far in saying that she would jump to conclusions about people who supported Trump? perhaps, the actual degree to which she might do that in reality could be debatable but certainly she used a broad enough brush to suggest as much to a lot of people and ensured that it would piss a lot of people off. It was Trumpian in its stupidity.
Except that she was generally correct, and the main problem was that people want to be able to hold racist opinions on issues without being considered racist. Pair that with selective reading of what she said and we have a manufactured outrage.
OK, but how did being “generally correct” actually help? I could make many statements that are factually, generally correct that would see me handed my arse in any political campaign.
Those who may have been wavering for reasons other than racism and intolerance are never going to take kindly to being lumped-in with those who truly are. Those considering not voting for Hilary were handed a perfect reason for that course of action. I’m not sure when her approach has ever been a sensible political tactic.
Definitely, but much harder to manufacture that outrage when given fewer raw materials to work with.
I think this part of that quote is what’s relevant here: “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that.”
Part of the definition of “prejudiced” is that the opinion is held without knowledge or experience of the thing; literally to pre-judge.
I am prejudiced against eating snails. It could be that they’re really good but I have the preconceived notion that they’ll be rubbery snot. :o
I’d suggest that in many cases bigots are indeed prejudiced, holding unfounded opinions based on generalizations and formed without much thought or knowledge. Others though may have experience of those they despise.
So I wouldn’t say prejudiced is wrong, but it may not be broad enough.
The concept of using a broad-brush generalisations to ascribe beliefs, opinions and behaviours to a specific demographic group is precisely what the OP is driving at.
Assuming that because they are in group “A” they must conform to stereotype “X” “Y” and “Z” is absolutely the point. That’s the concept we are trying to pin a label on. Saying that such thinking is fine because it is “generally correct” seems woefully short-sighted to me regardless of which side of the argument I’m sitting on. I doubt you’d accept that as justification in all cases where it might be used, would you?
There is no debate about whether this is done in the political sphere, it absolutely is, by all sides. Hilary was guilty of it but no more so (and probable less so) than Trump. If I were an American I’d be to the left of the democrats but have no problem in pointing out such fallacious thinking where I see it. In fact I’m probably even more critical of it when I see it being done ostensibly in my name, by my side, by my political bedfellows.
Not only is it a feature of politics, it is a feature of humans. A tribal shorthand to establish “them” and “us”. Useful for for keeping a band of hunter-gatherers in line and protecting access to the mammoth herds, a little harder to work around when all those tribes are squashed together into nation states.
No, that’s typically about nationality. First three dictionary refs I found:
“a person having a dislike of or prejudice against people from other countries”
“one unduly fearful of what is foreign and especially of people of foreign origin”
“a person who fears or hates foreigners, people from different cultures, or strangers”