This is a response thread to the following:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/13...gotry-1057806/

I'm not actually interested in the answer to *that* question here (if I were, there would be no reason to create a separate thread). Instead, I want to consider the use of the "bigot" label.

Definitions:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigot

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bigot

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/bigoted

Upon consideration of these definitions, it does not appear that mere disagreement is actually sufficient for "bigotry." In fact, it does appear that there is anything inherent in the definition of "bigotry" that allows one to define the content of a belief as being a "bigoted" position. Rather, it is how one holds that belief relative to other beliefs that makes it bigotry.

Therefore, it seems to me that it is impossible to say (in a vacuum) that belief X is a bigoted one UNLESS belief X includes a statement of how this belief is maintained.

And specifically, a disagreement does not imply bigotry on either side (regardless of the level of controversy). Two sides can disagree without either side being a bigot. However, there are certain APPROACHES to the conversation that is clearly bigoted:

It does not actually matter which side of the argument this person is on, this is a bigoted position.

This has not been that much of an issue here, but the label does come up and it's worth paying attention to what it actually means.

Pretty sure refusing marriage rights to a group of people because you don't like homosexuality = bigotry.

The main problem is the discrimination that results from your beliefs. I don't mind if you don't like homosexuality and would prefer if people weren't homosexual. That's not all that bigoted. Refusing to offer them equal rights is. Especially when your "excuse" is that you think it's what God wants.

"having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others:"

That fits Yahweh pretty good.

Does it fit the definitions?

One could say the same thing about just about every position. Your discrimination (societal marginalization) against those who discriminate is a result of your beliefs.

Are you suggesting that it is *STILL* bigoted, even if it's not to the same extent? Again, I refer you to the definitions.

I'm fairly certain that the definitions of bigotry do not entail any necessary actions. It's a statement about positions and beliefs.

You would have to explain how this is not non-sequitur. One could say that your excuse is that you're a secular humanist or something like that, and it seems to be just as effective of a position.

PS - You're clearly missing the point of the thread.

Do you believe that all bigotry is inherently "bad" in some sense?

The first definition is too general and nitty. I prefer the 2nd definition (because of the mention of the word "group"). Bigotry is not aimed at just one person's beliefs that you don't agree with, it's usually aimed at a group of people (with similar "ideas").


Being against gay marriage is clearly bigotry (because you're opposed to that group having any rights.. unlike your group, which deserves them). That is how bigotry works imo.

1OO%

No. I also think we are all bigots in the bad way in one way or another.

I agree. Just like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RovF1...etailpage#t=6s

Aaron, part of the problem is you are confusing the ultimate definition of bigotry with how you evidence it.

Here in my field, there are many legal issues that turn on people's mental states, from insanity to forming the intent to defraud or to murder to hate crime and employment discrimination statutes (which are based on a finding of bigotry, essentially). In none of these situations can we truly read people's minds. But what we do is look to circumstantial evidence of people's mental states.

When people argue that, for instance, religiously-motivated homophobia is a form of bigotry, they are doing the same thing. They are saying the circumstantial evidence best fits a hypothesis that these people are bigots.

I doubt you would find this that troubling, actually, on, for instance, the issue of Southern Baptists who found religious justification for slavery before the Civil War. Of course they were prejudiced against black people! Everything they said and did fit that hypothesis cleanly.

What people are arguing is that at least to some of us, the evidence is similarly obvious when it comes to religiously motivated homophobia.

This was the discussion I was hoping to have in the other thread.

For any belief x, I think there are essentially an infinite range of reasons a person might actually believe x (ranging from the mundane - "it's what my family believes" - to the bizarre - "aliens made me believe it with mind-rays" or "I have a brain disorder that causes me to believe it"). To suggest that belief in x necessarily implies y personal characteristic is never justified, imo.

But it's a much bigger deal with bigotry. To suggest that (for example) it's impossible to be against gay marriage without being bigoted against gays is tantamount to claiming that everybody against gay marriage is lying about their other beliefs.

In many cases, people may hold a set of beliefs for reasons that have no direct relationship to their views on homosexuality and on homosexuals. For example, say I believe in a particular interpretation of the Bible (for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality). And suppose that this interpretation of the Bible implies that marriage must be between a man and a woman, or else it's offensive to God. Finally, suppose I believe (again, for reasons unrelated to homosexuality) that anything offensive to God should be illegal.

Now I have a set of premises, formed completely independent of my views of homosexuality and homosexuals, that justifiably support a position against gay marriage. I could hold these premises while being gay myself, and while holding no ill will toward homosexuals nor preference for heterosexuals (I might even be partial to homosexuals, or believe that homosexuals are some kind of master race while those who are not homosexual are weak and deserve to be killed, you name it), and they would still lead to opposition to gay marriage on my part.

To assert that I must be bigoted against group z in order to hold belief x, when x may be a necessary conclusion of premises a, b, and c, all of which are wholly independent of my bigotry or lack thereof, is to assert that I cannot actually hold premises a, b, and c (because if I did, then my belief in x would be completely independent of any kind of bigotry).

And that's a problematic assertion. Almost a bigoted assertion.

If you argued that "support of slavery during the Civil War can be considered prima facie evidence of bigotry against blacks," I don't know if I'd agree but I wouldn't find it too problematic.

If you argued that "every single person who supported slavery during the Civil War was a bigot, and every single one of them supported slavery because they were bigots" I'd have a huge problem with your position. The two arguments aren't similar at all.

(I think the attitudes toward blacks, and toward slavery, held by Americans during the Civil War and through the entire 19th century resulted from a complex series of factors and feedback systems, and that drawing simple causation is a big mistake. Whether bigotry against blacks caused support of slavery, or whether support - by which I mean "perceived necessity" - of slavery caused bigotry against blacks, or whether other causal factors were involved, or whether all of the above was true to greater and lesser degrees depending on the specific situation, isn't an easy thing to puzzle out.)

How about you are unlikely to hold those positions without being bigoted? There are plenty of evidentiary gradations below "must".

Also, you are ignoring the possibility of unconscious bigotry. For instance, a lot of the ant-gay marriage folks seem unwilling to count gay parenting as a form of "procreation". Even though their stated reason may be a theoretically neutral test, that doesn't mean the reason they chose to use that test isn't because they just don't accept deep down inside, that gays are equal to straights.

Sure, but I'm not sure if even that means much. I mean, there are probably sporting events that are watched by primarily bigots. Is it meaningful to recognize that?

It seems meaningful to me in the gay marriage case, but bias may inform my views of that. Regardless, a lot of absolute claims are being made, so weighing in against absolute claims seems fair.

It's meaningful because we do, and should, draw distinctions between mere prejudice and good reasons for denying a legal privilege to someone. For instance, imprisoning felons is not controversial, but denying them the right to vote is, because the former seems quite related to reasonable conclusions you can make from their status as felons, whereas the latter doesn't and instead seems like it may be related to the disproportionate number of black felons and the fact that they might be more likely to vote for Democrats.

Also, I think it matters because this is a historical battle. Gays, for instance, want the discrimination that was normalized up until a few years ago to eventually be seen as just as bad as racism, sexism, or anti-semitism. Showing that the discrimination is motivated by animus is a key way to do this.

I know that you have a high desire to apply labels to people, but that's not actually a useful approach for understanding people.

For example, within many ethnic communities, there is a preference to marry within that community. Does that make those people bigoted? They are behaving in a systematically discriminatory pattern. So their bigotry is "evidenced" by (for example) Chinese preferentially marrying other Chinese.

But I think to label such behavior as "bigoted" is a grossly misapplied label in this instance. And it seems to me that the primary reason to use this particular approach is a failure to be willing to take the time to understand the the people that you are labeling.

I think that example would fall under the acceptable bigotry category. J/k. Actually, that isn't bigotry, because they probably don't show any disdain towards other communities, even though you would assume they do.

You definitely need complete information to make such a call. One example like that isn't enough.


Belief X does not equal bigotry

I show disdain towards belief X does
Belief X is not my belief Y, which I hold superior (for no real reason)


(I'm terrible with these xyz thingys)

I know a gay guy who is opposed to legalisation of gay marriages. I didnt want to post him as a counterexample because it basically stems from his bigotted views about heterosexuals ("We shouldn't demean ourselves by trying to fit in with their unenlightened and archaic social structures. Any gay person who does so is selling out.")

What an absurd position. There are excellent reasons to refuse marriage to homosexuals for reasons not relating to closed minded hatred of homosexuality. The fact that you can't see this very ironically makes you a bigot.

Examples of reasons:

- Homosexuality is not born but also learned (see:Greeks), and is harmful to the fabric of society as male-female pair bonding is preferable for the raising of children and the promotion of normality and conservatism (values required for the long term maintenance of a stable society).
- You are a traditionalist and believe that centuries old laws should not be changed without excellent reason. Letting gays marry makes little practical difference to their lives compared to civil unions. As opposed to say, ending slavery or giving women the right to participate in politics.
- You do not believe that "marrying the same sex" is a "right"

As far as the OP goes, there are good and non bigoted for taking a non PC position on nearly anything...to automatically call it bigotry is intellectual fraud and laziness.
There seems to be a trend these days to call discrimination anything that hurts the feelings of one group of deviants or abnormal people. That is not what discrimination is. Nor is it an invasion of rights.

A better example of an invasion of rights is the state telling me that I have to employ homosexuals/muslims/women in my business, or I will put in a cage and/or forced to pay these people money for "discrimination" (i.e. forced to work for them for free). That is a gross violation of my human rights and against the values of private property and the foundations of democracy. But you care about gays marrying far more than that? That you do is very telling of how much you actually care about "rights".

OK this just isn't true. I can list infinity beliefs that necessarily imply ignorance in the believer. I get what you are saying re: not all slavery supporters were bigots but that is a slight category error compared to gay marriage and people who are still denying on grounds of "ew gross". Still waiting for evidence of same-sex marriage destroying the fabric of society too.

And can we please not turn this thread into "gays can have civil unions that are identical to marriages but i just don't want them to be called the word 'marriage' because of TRADITION." Totally intellectually bankrupt reasoning.

Let's keep it on topic, folks. The gay marriage thread is over there.

Dude what is your problem? So you direct me there to get your take, but there directs me to here? You are trolling these threads now man, well done. Are you going to list your explicit non-bigoted reason in that thread or not?

Are you sure? How can you tell the difference between your ignorance and theirs?

(I'm speaking in the abstract here, it has nothing to do with gay marriage).

I was mainly talking about Ping and stu, who were posting about gay marriage. This thread is about the implicature of beliefs.

Does the word "chill" mean anything to you?

Because they are the ones making the positive claim without evidence in the end. i.e. gay people are inherently DIFFERENT or MUTANT "regular people."

Assuming you are not brain-damaged if you tell me the sky is not blue but a painted black dome I can take that to mean you are very ignorant.