Bigotry and Intolerance--what is it and what does it really mean?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

generalgrog wrote:
Corpsesarefun wrote:I think you're an adequate example of both.

Can we stop with the immediate insult? I didn't insult you.

GG

I see this thread going places, dark places.

And by that I see it being closed quickly.

All your bigots are belong to us!!!

**Frazzled**

purplefood wrote:World english dictionary for Bigot

bigot (ˈbɪɡət)

— n
a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race

By this definition anyone claiming religious reasons for opposing gay marriage is a bigot...

By this definition 95% of the persons posting on this forum, yourself included, are bigots.

Ancient Frazzled says: no one has ever changed their opinion.

**Frazzled**

Jihadin wrote:Hammer Lock in 2 pages

Yep. This is why we can't have nice things.

Torpedoes Away!!!

**Frazzled**

generalgrog wrote:
purplefood wrote:
generalgrog wrote:
Avatar 720 wrote:So what you're saying is that it's okay for you to insult half the forum because you didn't use specific names?

No what I'm saying is that I didn't insult anyone because I didn't use any names.

GG

You can quite easily insult people without using names...
You did it for instance.

I disagree with you..does that make me intolerant?

GG

yes.

**Frazzled**

Melissia wrote:
Frazzled wrote:By this definition 95% of the persons posting on this forum, yourself included, are bigots.
Fraz, we tolerate you. We don't AGREE with you, but we tolerate you. Cause of your fluffy wonderful Wiener Dogs!

I've been called bigot many many times here. Greatness is never appreciated (unless it is forced upon them!!!).
People misinterpret being an donkey-cave for being a bigot.

On the wiener dog fornt. yes they are cute. Since a fajita party Saturday Rodney has begun collecting old charcoal briquets. The wife found a partially complete bed of them in his kennel. She thinks he was trying to purify the kennel from the Overlord known as TBone (he won't go in it). Plus he ate an entire bird yesterday even when the wife was trying to pull a claw out of his mouth (jokes about the claw coming out the other end ensued). Thats one crazy sumbitch.

**Frazzled**

AegisGrimm wrote:Bigotry and intolerance are simply a result of individuals' fear and lack of understanding, coupled with human tendency towards herd mentality. Nothing more.

Even simpler, they are actions made towards innocent people/groups by either ignorance, or a feeling to not stand out.

If it was truly justified (which it almost never is), it wouldn't be bigotry at all.

Of course the CHinese gent who refused to move from in front of the lie of tanks was pretty intolerant. Gandhi was an intolerant SOB as well towards oppressors. Churchill was pretty damned intolerant of those nazi dudes. I guess they were both bigots too.

I like this game. No matter who wins, we lose.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:Well...I haven't been label a bigot...a murderer yes but not a bigot

You'll always be that lovable killing machine in our eyes Jihadin!

**Frazzled**

The problem of course is the definition. If you're bigoted towards a bigot then you bigoted against a defined group.

Of course the OP proffers that he does not view groups with hatred and intolerance. I can take him at his word. Of course - despite my personal view- I can also see why people would disgaree with same sex marriage without being evil homophobic breeder bigots.

Its a term used to shut down the conversation and bandied about way too much nowdays.

**Frazzled**

AegisGrimm wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
AegisGrimm wrote:Bigotry and intolerance are simply a result of individuals' fear and lack of understanding, coupled with human tendency towards herd mentality. Nothing more.

Even simpler, they are actions made towards innocent people/groups by either ignorance, or a feeling to not stand out.

If it was truly justified (which it almost never is), it wouldn't be [u]bigotry at all.

Of course the CHinese gent who refused to move from in front of the lie of tanks was pretty intolerant. Gandhi was an intolerant SOB as well towards oppressors. Churchill was pretty damned intolerant of those nazi dudes. I guess they were both bigots too.

I like this game. No matter who wins, we lose.

You missed the Underlined part. The nameless Chinese man, Ghandi, and Churchill were standing out against bigotry and intolerance. NOT performing it.

Oh contraire mon fraire they hated and were intolerant towards a specific group - oppressors and / or nazis (but not space nazis). If its a group you don't like they are bigots. if its a group you like they aren't.

**Frazzled**

Mannahnin wrote:Maybe in the case of Ghandhi, Churchhill and the Chinese guy facing down the tank, their bigotry was not harmful or evil.

In practice, though, most bigotry is.

it was evil as hell for the Nazis.

I have the sudden desire to clutch a Papashah tightly and climb onto the back of a T-34. To Berlin!!! er what were talking about?

**Frazzled**

Mannahnin wrote:Okay, so then we just have harmful bigotry (like racism and homophobia) and we have useful bigotry (like anti-Naziism).

I think in general practice the latter is more rare and not a particularly useful application of the term.

I'm kind of likin your definition there yankee boy (I just found out yankee came from an Indian word yangeese - most cool).

Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Its a term used to shut down the conversation and bandied about way too much nowdays.

Bingo!!

Xole also hit the nail on the head earlier by calling it a meaningless insult, which I think is a real shame, because it used to actually mean something to call someone a bigot.

GG

Its not meaningless though. Say it to my face when no one's around and its not going to go well for you.

**Frazzled**

Melissia wrote:Claiming that disagreeing with bigots makes one a bigot seems like it's a cheap cop-out to try to avoid talking about one's bigotry.

Now you're just being a bigot.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

broodstar wrote:
TheHammer wrote:Step 1: Redefine bigotry so that it only means active KKK members who are actively burning crosses in front of African American churches.

Step 2: Call anyone that disagrees with your bigoted world view a bigot or otherwise intolerant of your bigotry that is deeply rooted in a flawed and ridiculous understanding of Christianity.

Step 3: Back political platforms that actively hurt non-whites.

Step 4: Pretend that it is just a coincidence that voter ID laws hurt African Americans, that immigration laws target Latinos, attacking a woman's ownership of her own body, denying homosexuals equal rights and protection, and fear mongering against Muslims all look like a coordinated attempt to go after anyone not straight, white, male, and Christian.

Step 5: Get upset because Vice President Biden said something about chains? Complain about the New Black Panther Party standing in front of a polling place. Talk about how white Christians are the real oppressed people.

Step 6: Win elections?

Where the feth did all this come from!?

This guy?

**Frazzled**

chromedog wrote:Intolerance isn't a synonym for bigot.

Intolerance is a synonym for bigotRY.

Yes, pedantry. Then again, in English, your meaning often depends on the very placement of the right words and punctuation.

If there's one thing I just cannot tolerate, it's bigotry.

EVERYONE is bigoted against something. It's part of the human condition.

You're good. you're real good.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

xole wrote:I wonder if there is anything Dakka will ever agree on.

I think we can all agree that a vote for Frazzled (Wiener Dog Party candidate for Presidency) is a vote for a very entertaining future Presidency.
"If a man can't have a good rum and Coke at 8.30 in the morning, then the terrorists have already won."
-Frazzled on a proper breakfast.

**Frazzled**

Pacific wrote:Regarding the OP, thought this image posted on Aaron Dembski-Bowden's blog was pretty amusing...

You feel that the name rolls easy off the tongue????

**Frazzled**

TheHammer wrote:This is exactly what I'm talking about.

You probably have some pretty ugly issues and views of race if you complain about how awful the New Black Panther Party is, AND are in favor of voter ID laws that are done to lower African American voter turn out.

If you assume voter ID laws are there to lower African American voter turnout then I agree, you have some issues

**Frazzled**

Evidently over 70% of the US populace kowtow to Republican politicians in your world.

**Frazzled**

TheHammer wrote:It's gross that many people are trying to hide their bigotry and lies with outrage over being accuses of being bigoted liars.

Indeed, its also gross that many people are trying to hide their bigotry and lies with outrage that others are trying to hide their bigotry and lies with outrage over being accused of being bigoted liars.

I too have been called a bigot on this forum by people who don't know me. Fortunately for me I view their opinions and well their existence in general, as an overall waste of skin so it doesn't bother me.

**Frazzled**

Cheesecat wrote:
generalgrog wrote:

So I ask you what is a bigot?.......... really?

GG

Someone who insults other peoples sexuality (like they can control there sexual attraction), for example showing disgust towards gay people.

How about gay people calling others "hetero!" and "breeder!" ?

**Frazzled**

Mmm.... context. Got it. I'm sure breeder is just fine if in the right context.

**Frazzled**

Melissia wrote:It's an annoying thing for some of the more obnoxious people say far too often, I agree.

Then again, we're working on the technology that will allow homosexuals to breed, too, so it's not like it'll be accurate for long.

We're also working on technology that will eliminate homosexuals before birth. Be careful what you wish for. You might get it.

**Frazzled**

mattyrm wrote: Aye the point is boss, sure it pisses us off, It certainly does me, when you see double standards.. I mean, you remember when those two Somalian chicks were beating that lass up and shouting "Kill the white slag!" but they got off with a slapped wrist?

Of course it does annoy me that minorities can expect to be far better treated with regards to "racism" but at the end of the day, it DOES kinda make sense doesn't it?

The minorities are the ones that have took alot of gak.. well.. their ancestors anyway. The majority never needs looking after because everyone sees things their way!

Ergo, I do find it annoying yes, but it is less of a deal if a black bloke calls me a white bastard than if I start throwing racial slurs at him, and the same goes for that whole breeder thing.

Does that make sense? I'm not saying I don't get irritated by the fact that clearly a Somalian bloke would get away with racially abusing me.. and he clearly would lets have it right.. but, well.. he does have more of a right to have a chip on his shoulder than me doesn't he?

Im not saying people that are proper militant gays aren't douche bags.. and I especially hate angry lesbians as I had to throw one down some stairs in a nightclub once after she hit me with a bottle of WKD.....

But... you know.. it IS less of a deal isn't it!?

And white, straight Christian majorities really have no place claiming otherwise as far as I'm concerned.. are we such big babies that we cant take a little gak?!

What happens when "white, straight Christian majorities" are no longer majorities? Thats the case in several US states and growing.

**Frazzled**

TheHammer wrote:Don't worry, Frazzled, white folk will still be the majority in every position of power.

The words of a bigot right there.

**Frazzled**

azazel the cat wrote:
Frazzled wrote:What happens when "white, straight Christian majorities" are no longer majorities? Thats the case in several US states and growing.

Which ones?

The gay marriage debate really does boil down to one simple concept: social control.

Nothing more, nothing less.

The Christian churches generally seem to be under the impression that marriage is their exclusive domain, and as such they are, as always, attempting to excercise their control over that realm. However, as they have been on many things throughout history, they are wrong.

There are two very easy solutions to the issue:
1) Make it clear that you can be married by the state without the involvement of the curch. Simple.

or...

2) Create the status of "civil union" aka "common-law spouse", which is something we have in Canada. It grants all the rights that a traditionally-married couple get, except you only need to be co-habiting for at least 1 year with a person of whom you share a conjugal relationship.

I like solution #2. It let's the fundamentalists smile while they shut up, and it grants all legal rights to those who should have them (but perhaps currently don't in the US system)

Problem solved.

Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California. Thats a fact now. Its fine by me but this majority bs is trully bs.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr Nobody wrote:If gay marriage is allowed, can polygamy be aloud?

I don't know about aloud, but definitely allowed.

There is no limit. As a libertarian who thinks government shouldn't be in the marriage business in the first place, fine by me.

**Frazzled**

Melissia wrote:
That's to say the exception disproves the rule.
Don't use phrases when you don't know what they mean.
Does a Preacher who refuses to perform get sued for refusing the religious service?
They are not legally required to do anything, stop scaremongering.

They could be. Churches have been sued for not renting out their facilities to parties they don't like. Photographers who didn't want to do same sex weddings on religious grounds were sued (and lost) for discrimination.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

azazel the cat wrote:
The religius institutions generally seem to be under the impression that marriage is their exclusive domain, and as such they are, as always, attempting to excercise their control over that realm. However, as they have been on many things throughout history, they are wrong.

Corrected your typo.

There are two very easy solutions to the issue:
1) Make it clear that you can be married by the state without the involvement of the curch. Simple.

or...

2) Create the status of "civil union" aka "common-law spouse"

Bongo! Give the man a CeeGar!

Actually I'm down with the state creating a simple civil union status for ease of use. "Marriage" is a personal thing. You can call yourself married, hitched, or whatever, its irrelevant as the laws are found in the civil union contract.

**Frazzled**

Melissia wrote:Separate but equal still remains... not equal.

That solution simply won't work.

What separate but equal? Think before you type boyo er girlo!
No one gets marriage under the state. Everyone gets the civil license treatment. You can call it what you want-marriage, hitched, Sklarged, whatever. Have whatever or no ceremony that you want.

**Frazzled**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Melissia wrote:
Frazzled wrote:What separate but equal?
The solution number two presented by Azazel, which you have apparently taken a liking two.

Errr the solution they're presenting LITERALLY makes everyone the same though and removes the condition of "marriage" from federal purview. It becomes a religious matter that you and your partner of choice can chose to make a legal matter of under a civil union with your local government.

Edit: Or at least that's what Frazz is saying from what Azarel said.

Thats what I'm saying anyway.

**Frazzled**

xole wrote:What would be wrong with marrying a cyborg under the current system?

D cell usage would be tremendous.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:
dogma wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:

My side? I'm extremely supportive of gay marriage, I simply detest many of the arguments made in favor of it because many of them are awful. I'm also, unlike a lot of people on either side, willing to admit that there is a degree of vindictiveness that permeates the debate.

Then why are you using those arguments? your arguments for both sides, sound like they come from the conservative camp. Or do you support gay marriage because you think "On the liberal side its about forcing conservatives to accept homosexual relationships as equivalent to heterosexual ones, both present, past, and future"?

Sure there's vindictiveness, you have one side using the same arguments they made against allowing inter racial couples to marry, and now using them against same sex couples.

Then you have the other side who just want to be treated as equals in society and not as second class citizens.

shouldn't the argument go: The liberal side wants "To secure legally recognized civil marriage equality for all, without regard to sexual orientation or gender identity, at the state and federal level through grassroots organizing, education, action and partnerships"
http://www.marriageequality.org/about-meusa

But then again its odd you draw the line between liberals and conservatives. wouldn't the line actually be more: those for equality for all americans and those opposed to equality for all americans?

IMO, Everyone should have the same rights, to choose between a man, a woman, yourself, robots, cyborgs, an amusement park ride, a car, a pet, a wall, a corpse, a rock, a cartoon character, etc. Any laws being passed to define what a marriage should be is discriminating against all other forms of marriages. The bolded ones already happened, and might as well get the robots in now just to avoid those same people who oppose equality getting all bent out of shape latter on.

Thats not having a polite argument. Thats biasing the terms such that you can follow on and then shout "BIGOT!!!"

Here's some easier arguments:
Pro:
* Equal rights -contract law argument
* Lack of harm
* Historically marriage was a contract
* Historically marriage evolved depending on time and culture.
* Religion counter argument. Different religions view "marriage" in different ways (if can be supported)

Con
*Religion argument
- -- C: different religiions. Freedom of religion. C3 My religion, the Holy Order of Noodle Bugs, is just fine with it. Do you want sharia law telling YOU what to do?
*History argument
----C: different depending on history and society.

*Impugns sanctity of marriage argument
---C: How? Your marriage is as strong as you make it. What I do doesn't impact your marriage. C2: lots of things impact you. Thats part of the US society. You don't have the freedom to not be offended by others' speech or behavior.

*Children argument
---C:Same argument as mixed race adoption. There are more children in need of good homes than good homes. As long as its a good home its better.

**Frazzled**

Texas, like most of the former Spanish royal holdings, is superior in having community property.