Bigotry

  • Thread starter Thread starter Betterave
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Betterave

Guest
I don’t know if anyone else has noticed this, but it seems that there are a lot of bigots whose bigotry is embodied precisely in their calling those they disagree with bigots. We could just call such people hypocritical bigots, but obviously that wouldn’t make clear the specific nature of their hypocritical bigotry. I wonder if there is an appropriate term for such people which I just can’t think of, or if we should coin a new term for such people. Any suggestions?
 
Alternately, I’m looking for a name for that brand of hypocrisy which consists in making bigoted ascriptions of bigotry. (Maybe this is a waste of time, but it just seems to come up so often.)
 
Betterave said:
I don’t know if anyone else has noticed this, but it seems that there are a lot of bigots whose bigotry is embodied precisely in their calling those they disagree with bigots. We could just call such people hypocritical bigots, but obviously that wouldn’t make clear the specific nature of their hypocritical bigotry. I wonder if there is an appropriate term for such people which I just can’t think of, or if we should coin a new term for such people. Any suggestions?
Click to expand...
Are you referring to something similar to everyone who publicly disagrees with the president being “racist”? Cause I sure have noticed that one…

FSC
 
Can’t help u coin a term but u may be interest in a book/lecture called “the intolerance of tolerance” by DA Carson. A google search will yield it.
 
Just to have some understanding of the actual meanings according to a version of Webster’s:

**bigot **n.
**1. **a person who holds blindly and intolerantly to a particular creed, opinion, etc.
**2. **a narrow-minded, prejudiced person
**SYN.- **ZEALOT

zealot
**1. **a person who is zealous, esp. to an extreme or excessive degree; fanatic

**zealous ***adj.*full of, characterized by, or showing zeal; ardently devoted to a purpose; fervent; enthusiastic

**SYN.- ZEALOT implies extreme or excessive devotion to a cause and vehement activity in its support [zealots of reform *];
FANATIC suggests the unreasonable overzealousness of one who goes to any length to maintain or carry out his or her beliefs **a temperance fanatic];
an ENTHUSIAST is one who is animated by an intense and eager interest in an activity, cause, etc. **a sports enthusiast];
BIGOT implies blind and intolerant devotion to a creed, opinions, etc. **a religious bigot]

**zeal **n.
intense enthusiasm, as in working for a cause; ardent endeavor or devotion; ardor; fervor

**intolerant **adj.
not tolerant; unwilling to tolerate others’ opinions, beliefs, etc. or persons of other races, background, etc.; bigoted; illiberal

**tolerance **n.
1. a) a tolerating or being tolerant, esp. of views, beliefs, practices, etc. of others that differ from one’s own
b) freedom from bigotry or prejudice
**2. **an allowable deviation from a standard or from the theoretical ideal,
**3. **the ability to endure

It seems like these words could be used by those who disagree strongly with others, regardless of which position they hold.

What’s missing is an OBJECTIVE Standard of what not extreme. Some think the Standard is the Judeo-Christian God. Others think it is majority rule within a state or nation. Some think it is what a minority demands for themselves regrdless of the other two time honored standards. And now we also have Islamic Radicals wanting to determine who are the intolerant bigots in this world.

**Is marriage between a man and a woman, OR between a man and women, OR between two or more persons regardless of gender? Does age matter if some want a different age? **

Is one an intolerant bigot because one holds strongly to one definition and not another?
 
Prodigal_Son said:
Or “totalitolerance”. 😃
Click to expand...
That might work. Then we could have ‘totalitolitarianism’. I was originally thinking something like ‘bigocrisy’. The problem with totalitolerance is that it might tend to impugn tolerance, and tolerance in itself is not a bad thing. In fact, the problem is precisely that a lack of tolerance is often present in the very act of preaching tolerance - but that’s often okay, because intolerance is also in itself not a bad thing. So it’s not quite the same as the bigotry point, it seems, where bigotry is bad in itself. And in reality I guess it’s not so much a lack of tolerance that is the problem in the totalitolerance case, as much as self-righteous bigotry which leads to the corruption of the ability to make judgments that balance tolerance and intolerance (even the temptation to embrace the nonsensical notion that intolerance might be bad in itself).

Maybe the term ‘self-righteous bigotry’ would cover a lot of what I’m trying to refer to. Or maybe ‘PC-bigotry’: the bigotry by which those with a ‘politically correct’ agenda dismiss as bigots those who are interested in discussing the truth in a way that is not deferent to their ‘politically correct’ standards. (This will only be clear if we can assume that it will be recognized that the characteristic PC reflex is to dismiss all opponents as bigots, without ever addressing their arguments…)

I agree this kind of bigotry can come up with race issues and definitely it seems to be a mainstay of the ‘reasoning’ used in support of homosexual rights (especially the right not to be offended by ‘hate speech,’ which is found, for example, on many university campuses). It also seems to be a big problem for those who are convinced that the Pope is an ignoramus when he talks about condoms and AIDS in Africa - although the explicit language of bigotry is perhaps not so prevalent in this case? Also feminists seem to flirt with this a lot - ‘get your rosary off my ovary’ [implied(?): ‘…you bigot’] and all that idiocy, as well as a lot of people who talk about George W. Bush or other ‘theocratic’ politicians, secularism in politics… etc.

To the question: Is one an intolerant bigot because one holds strongly to one definition [of marriage] and not another? - of course not, although that’s what strong supporters of ‘gay-marriage’ always seem to say. Bigotry is a matter of how one believes, not what one believes. Maybe a PC-bigot could be defined as a person who does not understand this.
 
Whoever is calling anyone what, it is good to remember that if someone is watching from a third position, the two adversaries might seem exactly equal in their methods and means. I am quite sure that anyone strongly devoted and faithful to their non-Catholic way may appear bigoted to some degree by the faithful on here, and visa-versa. Maybe closer listening and reading may be in order, given we are all form the same Source?
 
I think an important element in understanding bigotry is the idea of being “self centered” to the point of being significantly unfair to others.

While I think that sex outside of marriage is wrong, I am powerless to stop it in a free society. I don’t waste my time trying to determine who did what since the last time I saw them.

While I think that any adult should have the right to have whoever they want in their personal and economic lives, I also think that laws have been written - Registered Domestic Partners - in California to afford non-traditional couples these rights.

I do draw the line at the blatant attempts to co-opt the time honored term, “marriage.” Defending the definition of the term "marriage’ is not bigotry. Demanding the term marriage be co-opted to include same sex unions, when such unions have the above mentioned freedoms is being self-centered, in your face, unfair.

No analogy will satisify everyone. But, if living together with benefits can be called “sport,” we can see that football is sport but quite different than golf which is also a sport. Marriage is to golf (the older sport) as gay unions is to football (the newer sport). One cannot be honest and call “football” “golf” just because golf is accepted as a more civilised sport.

Good civil law must comport well with Moral Law. See Nazis and Communists and other dictatorships that tried to eliminate Moral Law. When we separate Moral Law from Civil Law, which is what is happening, we are moving further into a Godless society. Godless societies just do not work out for the good.

In my heart of hearts, I do not believe that God will call those who defend the time honored definition of marriage bigots.
 
GratefulFred said:
In my heart of hearts, I do not believe that God will call those who defend the time honored definition of marriage bigots.
Click to expand...
…but keep in mind: one can defend anything in a bigoted way. There are plenty of people who defend the notion of ‘gay marriage’ in a non-bigoted way (although their arguments are generally very naive). And there are plenty of anti-gay bigots, including defenders of traditional marriage. The tendency to bigotry is a pretty deep-seated human tendency, it’s not confined to any particular group. But I think the trend towards ‘bigo-crisy’ (I know - that’ll never catch on) which can be seen, e.g., in the ‘gay rights’ movement may be a particularly modern problem, and in particular a problem for secular society.
 
Betterave said:
I don’t know if anyone else has noticed this, but it seems that there are a lot of bigots whose bigotry is embodied precisely in their calling those they disagree with bigots. We could just call such people hypocritical bigots, but obviously that wouldn’t make clear the specific nature of their hypocritical bigotry. I wonder if there is an appropriate term for such people which I just can’t think of, or if we should coin a new term for such people. Any suggestions?
Click to expand...
The word “bigot” has now become a bludgeon of the Left to whack people on the head with for not conforming to their views. No one wants to be a bigot, or be called a bigot, so those loathsome folks on the left drag that slur out anytime someone doesn’t see the world the way “they’re supposed to” according to them.

Lefty bully; “you mean you like keeping the word marriage as it’s *always *been defined for all of recorded human history, and *still is *in about 98% of the world? . . . Bigot!”
 
Betterave said:
…but keep in mind: one can defend anything in a bigoted way. There are plenty of people who defend the notion of ‘gay marriage’ in a non-bigoted way (although their arguments are generally very naive). And there are plenty of anti-gay bigots, including defenders of traditional marriage. The tendency to bigotry is a pretty deep-seated human tendency, it’s not confined to any particular group. But I think the trend towards ‘bigo-crisy’ (I know - that’ll never catch on) which can be seen, e.g., in the ‘gay rights’ movement may be a particularly modern problem, and in particular a problem for secular society.
Click to expand...
Hi folks,
Can’t think of an appropriate name right now but if you’d like to see some intolerance based upon humourlessness check out post no. 331 on the thread ‘Should science be secular?’ here in the philosophy domain.
My LARGE reply will hopefully alert others to the level of that particular poster’s mindset.
God Bless,
Colmcille1.🙂
 
colmcille1 said:
Hi folks,
Can’t think of an appropriate name right now but if you’d like to see some intolerance based upon humourlessness check out post no. 331 on the thread ‘Should science be secular?’ here in the philosophy domain.
My LARGE reply will hopefully alert others to the level of that particular poster’s mindset.
God Bless,
Colmcille1.🙂
Click to expand...
Why should I tolerate the likes of you?
 
colmcille1 said:
Hi folks,
Can’t think of an appropriate name right now but if you’d like to see some intolerance based upon humourlessness check out post no. 331 on the thread ‘Should science be secular?’ here in the philosophy domain.
My LARGE reply will hopefully alert others to the level of that particular poster’s mindset.
God Bless,
Colmcille1.🙂
Click to expand...
I feel for you colmcille1, he’s a classic troll, they live for insulting people on message boards at a level they’d never dare in real life. I actually experienced this particular troll and his mindless insults on my but you wont find intellect in the brain thread a month ago. Why he hasn’t been banned yet is a mystery to me. Maybe Catholic Answers likes having him here to make atheists look bad
 
ronnie_bonigli said:
I feel for you colmcille1, he’s a classic troll, they live for insulting people on message boards at a level they’d never dare in real life.
Click to expand...
That is an assumption you can put the test at your convenience. I’ll be happy to direct you to a meeting place.
I actually experienced this particular troll and his mindless insults on my but you wont find intellect in the brain thread a month ago. Why he hasn’t been banned yet is a mystery to me. Maybe Catholic Answers likes having him here to make atheists look bad
Click to expand...
Perhaps they thought that your own behaviour left every bit as much to be desired as mine?

You were talking utter rot on that thread, not to mention being obnoxious, overweening, vainglorious and foul tempered.
 
ronnie_bonigli said:
I feel for you colmcille1, he’s a classic troll, they live for insulting people on message boards at a level they’d never dare in real life. I actually experienced this particular troll and his mindless insults on my but you wont find intellect in the brain thread a month ago. Why he hasn’t been banned yet is a mystery to me. Maybe Catholic Answers likes having him here to make atheists look bad
Click to expand...
Hi ronnie,
Thank you, my friend, for your kind words. I have read over the page you referenced and may I return said feelings of sympathy. Not to sound too precious about it but my attitude is purely philosophical now withregard to this poster. There is only so much one can humanly argue with such a fellow. We can easily be drawn down “alleyways” of side-issues known only to himself and where we may be “mugged” by his shadow-filled vitriol.
That way madness lies…

My own experience with this poster started fairly innocuously when I essayed some dryly humourous quip. I obviously hit a nerve but rather than retreat from a bully my tactic is to take him head-on.

Now, I do not directly reply to his taunts but rather filter them as best I can to a place where my (and hopefully others) understanding will grow. IOW, we know there is a source for such anger and rage and in our act of contemplating same hopefully we can get some sense of proportion and, after, a feeling of forgiveness.

Yes, it is indeed interesting that CAF keep him on here. (It was said during the height of the “troubles” in Northern Ireland that the only reason the IRA did not assasinate Rev Ian Paisley was because he, via his ranting, was an assured though unwitting recruiter of new blood to that terrorist organisation!)

Yet what would be his own reasons for so many visits to a Catholic site? Perhaps this poster really wants to come home…?

God Bless,
Colmcille1.🙂
 
I know this is a thread on bigotry but practical examples of nastiness (from all sides) add nothing to the discussion.
 
Theophorus said:
I know this is a thread on bigotry but practical examples of nastiness (from all sides) add nothing to the discussion.
Click to expand...
Hi Theophorus,
If you were referring to my reference to Northern Ireland and were offended by same, I sincerely apologise. It was not my intention to hurt anyones feelings.
God Bless,
Colmcille1.🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top