Fly has cause quite a fuss on this forum about racism and bigotry. He's also asserted that conservatives don't know what racism is, they just know that there are some words you can't say, to the ire of many. And finally, he's talked about writing something up on it, but that hasn't come.

I'm going to steal his thunder.

Bigotry and bigots. Racism and racists.

Let's start off with the easy ones:














(For reference)







Any objections yet? Are we at least on the same page here? These people are examples of bigots, and their actions examples of bigotry. This bigotry has obviously caused grave and irreversible damage and injustice in America and throughout the world.

And as far as I can tell, I guess people on this board who get accused of bigotry take such great offense to the accusation because they think they're being accused of equivalence with one of the above. I don't think that's the case. To the best of my knowledge, no forum member has participated in a lynching, a hate-based murder, or genocide, and with very few exceptions, none has spoken out in favor of any of the above. And furthermore, virtually no poster has actually accused anyone of saying or doing as much.

What about this lady? She didn't kill anybody. She doesn't condone killing anyone. And she doesn't think she's a racist. She probably doesn't wake up in the morning thinking about how much she wants to lynch a ******. Hell, there are probably many thousands of Americans who think just like she does.

It sure sounds to me like she thinks race is determining the difference in achievements between blacks and whites.

None of these definitions require genocide, murder, or any other violence. They don't even require action. They aren't dependent on using naughty racial slurs that 2+2 censors.

And no, they don't cease to apply if a lot of people hold the same belief. "A majority of Americans think the same way" does not invalidate the accusation, even if it may inflame more people. I'm confident that Jews were soundly hated by a majority of Germans ca. 1939, that Jim Crow was extremely popular amongst Southern whites ca. 1950, and that Apartheid was well-loved by South African whites ca. 1970. And yeah, all these people were INFURIATED when outsiders tried to tell them that their beliefs were unacceptable and wrong.

As for the "fleeting thought" defense, I have always maintained that that is valid. Everyone has fleeting prejudiced thoughts. The above definitions, and the operating definition used by most bigot-spotters, specifically excludes these sorts of things: "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted..." Thinking something, and then realizing that the thought is irrational prejudice that should be rejected is what everyone should be aspiring to do all the time, and people who do this aren't condemned by us bigot-spotters.

One thing that Stu argued in his latest ATF thread is that using "the b-word" is unnecessarily inflammatory and should not be used, even if applicable. No, that is a concession I will not make. Do you really think we should sit quietly and nod our heads if an SS officer drones on about the evils of "Die Juden?" Absolutely not, even if calling him on it will make him upset. His beliefs should not be tolerated and have no legitimate place at the table. If your beliefs are less harmful than that, and more popular in the current country and age, that doesn't make them any more valid or desirable. As shown above, bigotry is historically very popular, and we're not out of the woods yet.

A concession I am willing to make, however, is, if people really think I'm equating their more mild form of bigotry with Nazism, Apartheid, or Jim Crow when I call them "a bigot" even though this is not my intent, I could be convinced to try to refer to "bigoted ideas" or "prejudiced ideas" instead, but that's about all I got to give. The ideas may still be deserving of the title, even if the person spouting them hasn't lynched anyone lately.

So yeah, other people can elaborate or disagree with me, but I think this is a conversation worth starting.

tldr

i did enjoy pictures tho

Wookie 4 mod

Also, ftr Tom Veil tries to lynch me regularly.

This is a tangent to the main thrust of the thread but that is so conclusive that it's uninteresting to me. Feel free to delete if you like.

wookie,

Would you say that bigotry is immoral or universally undesirable. Or do you just personally find it sub optimal and have a personal preference against it. Can a moral relativist (I'm not assuming you are one) truly condemn bigotry?

All right, I'll be the one to say it. Great post.

Making fun of the Catholic Confession as [Phil] did in this forum is a great example of bigotry. Please , I am not saying you cannot joke about Catholics or other groups. I am saying the manner and placement of his post was clearly bigotry. In fact, it was the clearest example I have ever encountered in these forum and the clearest example I have encounter anywhere in some time.

Perhaps we can TV or some other mod to give us this post. TV edit it to zero. That might be a good place to start

I'm pretty sure you could count the number of EOD votes on you by me on one hand.

I think a lot of progress has been made since many of these photos have been taken.

Yes, probably. But,

Hypo 1:

What if it turns out that there is a certain gene that occurs in the Quillian race at a much higher incidence than the Poxian race, and that gene causes the person possessing it to visually grasp the shape of an object quicker than those that do not possess it?

Altering this gene also alters relevant physiological features generally believed relevant in defining race (i.e Poxians have more chest hair than Quillians).

(a) Would a scientist publishing the discovery of this gene be racist?

(b) Would it be racist to say that Quillians are generally better than Poxians at visually grasping the shape of objects?

(c) Would it be racist to assume, for the purposes of a relevant decision, that a Quillian individual is likelier to visually grasp objects more quickly than a Poxian, if further information was not reasonably available about the individuals in question?

Hypo 2:

What if persons of a certain race connect their race to non-physiological features of themselves, i.e. an imagined history or common culture? Assume that these cultural or historical associations have some relevance in the community.

For instance, assume many or most Quillian people in a certain geographical area believe that their ancestors descended from God-like nomadic warriors. That belief justifies and reinforces a Quillian culture that revolves around a warrior ethos. It also underpins resistance to technological change. When a member of the Quillian community refrains from engaging in warrior-like activities, or adopts a new technology, that member is ostracized or criticized. Nevertheless, some Quillians persistently reject the dominant culture in their community.

Quillians who participate in the dominant Quillian culture where distinguishing garb from those that do not, with some exceptions.

(a) Is a Quillian espousing the Quillian self-history and ethos racist or bigoted?

(b) Is an anthropologist describing Quillian culture as quintessentially Quillian racist or bigoted? Is it racist or bigoted for the anthropologist to argue that the self-history of the Quilians does not match known facts about history, knowledge gained from hard disciplines like archeology and geology?

(c) Is a Quillian criticizing other Quillians in general for espousing this history and ethos bigoted?

(d) Is a non-Quillian criticizing Quillians in general for espousing this history and ethos bigoted?

(e) Is it bigoted or racist if a Poxian persistently and unapologetically becomes frightened when encountering a Quillian in traditional Quillian garb?

I agree. Institutional racism and bigotry have largely been eradicated or at least is in the retreat, but prejudiced and intolerance remains. I can still remember being called a n****- lover when I was a small child because my best friend was a black girl, but I proudly say that this sentiment has largely been marginalized in US society. But there are still miles and miles before we sleep if we want to strive for more equality and less bigotry in thr world.

Muslim extremism is an extreme problem. I agree that moderates (of any religion) are not a problem but extremism of any religion is very, very bad. There are a lot of violent extremist muslims out there right now -- there are also extremist Christians but they are mostly peaceful now-a-days. Most other religions are peaceful for the most part as well. I understand that extremists Christians have done a lot of killing based on religion in the past, which is fueling some (or perhaps most) of the Muslim hatred to date, but that does not condone their actions either.

I don't think the mosque in NYC is a threat or anything, but extremist muslims are a threat to the free world. Look at Europe for several examples, even France wants to ban them. Aethists tend to hate Christians but accept all other religions, I think most atheists are really just anti-christian. I don't really agree with that. Why can't we call the muslims out for being deluded like atheists are so willing to do towards christians?

How many are there? I'll take an order of magnitude.

How many what?