Forty Two wrote:Hermit wrote:rEvolutionist wrote:Bigotry against disadvantaged people. And you clearly missed DDs link to SDs disgusting rape apologetics. Go back and find it.
Bigotry has a cornucopia of meanings, but the chief one is "intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself." I don't see it. And no, I will not accept "read the thread" as evidence. That's too close to "find it your fucking self because I can't be bothered", which is pretty much all you and Surr have been doing so far. Give me some relevant quotes, thanks.
I would even add that I can't for the life of me figure out why bigotry would be considered an offense on a discussion board. So what if person X is intolerant of people who hold different opinions? As long as person X is not namecalling or personally attacking other people, and not derailing conversations or posting off topic material, then what in the world does "intolerance" have to do with anything?
A lot of people are intolerant of pedophiles, for example, or those who defend pedophilia. So what? Can't there still be a thread about pedophilia, where people can talk about it? Some of those people are just going to declare pedophilia to be indefensible and pedophiles to be monsters. They're bigoted against pedophiles.
Similarly, if someone is bigoted against "disadvantaged people," that doesn't actually effect the conversation. What if someone just doesn't tolerate trans people. Some feminists, for example, are bigoted against trans people. As long as they aren't namecalling and such, then what is the problem with them expressing their opinion?
Lastly, this trend to suggest that being bigoted against certain groups of people is forbidden, but being bigoted against other groups of people is o.k., is just a recipe for conversational disaster. There are many different opinions as to who is disadvantaged and why, and who is marginalized, and who is privileged, and who is advantages, and all that. Nobody agrees on it. Nor should it matter. Being a woman or a minority, for example, doesn't immunize one from criticism or argument.
Precisely correct. "Bigotry" as strictly defined is morally and ethically neutral because it is the intent of the bigotry that lends it either moral value or social opprobrium.
It's perfectly rational and reasonable for a person to express bigotry against those who deserve to be reviled, as you state.
rEv, for example, expresses pretty much universal bigotry against "the rich" and "big corporations" and his reasons for doing so are, although deeply ignorant and misguided, his opinions about the way he thinks society ought to operate. There is nothing inherently opprobrious about such bigotry, but it does tend to cause others to likewise express bigotry towards his expressions of bigotry.
The connotation is, of course, that nobody should be a bigot and everybody should be tolerant towards all others, regardless of their actions. This of course is a Neo-Marxist bit of doublespeak these days because what Marxists and Progressives really mean is that Marxists and Progressives have not just a right, but a duty to mankind to be bigots against capitalism and capitalists but no one is allowed to call their bigotry what it is, nor is anyone permitted to express bigotry against Marxists or Progressives because it is forbidden for anyone to question, much less be intolerant of Marxism or Progressivism.
But bigotry, like discrimination, is a fundamental civil right in any free society.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
What do elections have to do with democracy?
