Bigotry, is there a fair test for it?

[Larv]

Originally Posted by pamela

okay larv, what test would you suggest?
and what criteria do you deem fair?
lets just leave the other threads out of this one okay?

A test for bigotry must be a test for intolerance. But that, in itself, requires determining what should be tolerated and what shouldn’t. So who determines that?

Am I a bigot if I can’t tolerate cigarette smokers? If I can’t tolerate Dittohead Republicans? If I can’t tolerate animal abusers? If I can’t tolerate people who are intolerant of my points of view?

[pamela]

Originally Posted by larv

A test for bigotry must be a test for intolerance. But that, in itself, requires determining what should be tolerated and what shouldn’t. So who determines that?

okay larv-heres a look at intolerance

lack of toleration; unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, persons of different races or backgrounds, etc.
2. incapacity or indisposition to bear or endure

why do we need a test to determine if someone is a bigot or intolerant? what purpose would it serve, satisfy the ego?
we are all intolerant to those things, ideas and matters that we disagree with,but how we handle them in our interactions is what separates the wise from the foolish. For example, i am intolerant of living in squalor.Now do i degrade my children by calling them slobs and yell until its picked up? or do i persuade them by explaining to them the reasons for keeping the house neat and lead by example by picking up the first 100 legos on the floor?
Respecting the fact that we are all different in our thinking and beliefs is key.However, when the slander starts, whether inferred or out right spoken, the respect dissipates.Enter in ego.To grasp and take hold of the the concept that one is superior over another is begging strife and dissention.Then begins the LABEL. We create a concept in our minds of who the person is based upon their words.But this is not an absolute, only a portion of who they have presented themselves to be.The superior ego determines that the individual is a bigot based upon their words, while basking in its own intolerance . Hence, it cannot tolerate the bigot. A rather full circle of based upon the failure to accept others in our differences. When we decide to live peacefully, without personal attacks or labels, the change occurs.Place judgement upon the word or action, not upon the person

Am I a bigot if I can’t tolerate cigarette smokers? If I can’t tolerate Dittohead Republicans? If I can’t tolerate animal abusers? If I can’t tolerate people who are intolerant of my points of view?

separate the action or word from the person larv and drop the confining label.Bigotry cannot thrive, when the ego is not fed

[Larv]

Originally Posted by pamela

lack of toleration; unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, persons of different races or backgrounds, etc.
2. incapacity or indisposition to bear or endure

OK, you’ve identified some key criteria for bigotry. Now, do you also see those who are intolerant of people who ask hard questions about such sensitive matters as gay rights and “gay marriage” to be bigots. Or do you see those who call such people bigots as the real bigots?

If I oppose “gay marriage,” for example, does that automatically make me a bigot, even if I support full-on domestic partnerships for gays? Or if someone seeks to change the traditional meaning of the word “marriage”—a change that flies in the face of some traditional people—does that make him a bigot? I hate NASCAR, and I opposed all efforts to build a NASCAR track near my town. Does that make me a bigot?

why do we need a test to determine if someone is a bigot or intolerant? what purpose would it serve, satisfy the ego?...separate the action or word from the person larv and drop the confining label.Bigotry cannot thrive, when the ego is not fed

Ego? According to Freud the ego is only a mediator between the id and the superego. You must mean foolish pride instead. Do you have a test for foolish pride that can be used to test for bigotry?

[freeztar]

I have moved the four posts following larv's last post above to the "Gay Marriage" thread...err...this one:
Gay Marriage

Let's please keep the discussion on topic or the thread will be closed. Thanks!

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Larv

OK, you’ve identified some key criteria for bigotry.

Since Freeztar moved it, my response to your questions which were relevant to your topic are available here.

[CraigD]

I see a serious flaw with approaching a complicated, nuanced word like “bigotry” by assuming it as an objectively real psychological trait, or disorder – to which psychologists assign diagnostic labels via documents such as the several editions of the DSM - and attempting to define a “fair test” – what psychologist usually call a diagnostic criteria.

Regrettably, beyond vaguely noting standard cautions such as the APA’s

“It is important to understand that the appropriate use of the diagnostic criteria requires clinical training and that they cannot be simply applied in a cookbook fashion.”
- from What is the DSM and what is it used for?

and general cautions against equating common vernacular words with technical scientific terms, I find it difficult to succinctly describe this flaw. The best I can offer is to suggest that anyone who doesn’t perceive this flaw take a formal or informal study course in clinical psychology – it’s one of those “you just get it / ah hah moment” things.

I think the definition of bigotry belongs more properly in the domain of linguistics and law, rather than of psychology. Psychology concerns itself with how people acquire, persist in, and change beliefs.

The common use concept described by the word “bigotry” relates, in a psychological sense, to mental states in which a particular collection of beliefs persists despite with disagreement the beliefs of others or objective evidence. However, for these mental states to map closely to the common use concept, they must be associated with at least a few additional characteristics, including, I think, emotional arousal (in more common, nuanced terms, “outrage”) directed against some class of people or behaviors. For example, it doesn’t make common sense to say that someone is “bigoted” in their belief that tomatoes are an unhealthy food, but does to say that someone is bigoted in their belief that dark skinned people are stupid, sexually promiscuous, and untrustworthy. Emotional arousal directed against others seems to me essential to the common meaning of bigotry, more even than irrationality. For example, it doesn’t make common sense to say the belief, despite vigorous refutation, in aliens hiding behind Saturn telepathically controlling world leaders, is bigoted – other common usage words, such as “crazy” are applicable, but not bigoted.

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Being intolerant of bigotry is not itself a form of bigotry, and to suggest otherwise shows a deep misunderstanding of the way the term "bigotry" is used in our vernacular.

With the conditions only that it involve (1) persistent belief despite strong refutation, (2) emotional arousal, and (3) direction against a class of people or behaviors, it actually is possible to be “bigoted against bigotry”. This suggest that, to make common sense, at least one additional characteristic is requires: (4) that the class against which it is directed be defined by an immutable (unchangeable) trait. Thus dark-skinned people can be the object of bigotry, but “ordinary people who have not yet memorized a recently changed address” cannot be.

Thus, being intolerant of a particular instance of bigotry is bigoted if and only if the person being intolerant believes that the object of her or his intolerance in incapable of change.

This characteristic is problematic, however, because, except for obvious, artificial examples like the above, the belief that a characteristic is or is not immutable is often very subjective.

[Larv]

Originally Posted by CraigD

Thus, being intolerant of a particular instance of bigotry is bigoted if and only if the person being intolerant believes that the object of her or his intolerance in incapable of change.

Craig, if I have you right then I am a bigot if I am intolerant of people for being who they are naturally. I agree. I am a bigot if I am intolerant of a gay person’s gayness, a white person’s whiteness, or a young person’s youth. But am I a bigot if I am intolerant of “gay marriage,” of white supremacy, or of juvenile delinquency?

This characteristic is problematic, however, because, except for obvious, artificial examples like the above, the belief that a characteristic is or is not immutable is often very subjective.

Personally, I think all accusations of bigotry are essentially subjective. As such, there may be no fair test for bigotry. But let me suggest a simple, rule-of-thumb for it: Bigotry is like glue in a bottle; it doesn’t harden until it is squirted out on to the gluing surface. Therefore, the bottle contains the bigotry.

[Galapagos]

Originally Posted by Larv

Craig, if I have you right then I am a bigot if I am intolerant of people for being who they are naturally. I agree. I am a bigot if I am intolerant of a gay person’s gayness, a white person’s whiteness, or a young person’s youth. But am I a bigot if I am intolerant of “gay marriage,” of white supremacy, or of juvenile delinquency?

White supremacy and juvenile delinquency are inherently wrong for obvious reasons(both generally cause harm to others; delinquency= crime; white supremacy=racism=bigotry). Gay Marriage is not. The fact that you equate racism and crime with simply being part of a homosexual marriage is revealing of your own bias(one that I think has been shown throughout your discussion of sexuality on this forum).
I think the above revealing comments of yours are of the sort that could be used as a rough test for bigotry, and IMO, you just tested positive.

[Larv]

Originally Posted by Galapagos

White supremacy and juvenile delinquency are inherently wrong for obvious reasons(both generally cause harm to others; delinquency= crime; white supremacy=racism=bigotry). Gay Marriage is not. The fact that you equate racism and crime with simply being part of a homosexual marriage is revealing of your own bias(one that I think has been shown throughout your discussion of sexuality on this forum).

OK, it was a hypothetical anyway. So, to rephrase just for you, let's make it: gay supremacy, "white marriage," and juvenile delinquency.

I think the above revealing comments of yours are of the sort that could be used as a rough test for bigotry, and IMO, you just tested positive.

Galapagos, you just tested positive on my rule-of-thumb for bigotry: Bigotry is like glue in a bottle; it doesn’t harden until it is squirted out on to the gluing surface. Therefore, the bottle contains the bigotry.

[freeztar]

Ok, I'm going to close the thread now.