Bigotry, is there a fair test for it?

[Larv]

A drama is being played out here in the green state of Washington. Our new “everything-but-marriage” law, fully legalizing same-sex domestic partnerships, is being challenged by the religious right via Referendum 71. They think there are all sorts of good reasons for not allowing same-sex domestic partnerships, including religious reasons. They give voice to those who feel same-sex domestic partnerships threaten traditional marriage.

I know such a person, Ralph, and he believes that the homosexuals are the real bigots. And I know homosexuals who believe that Ralph is the real bigot. So who is the real bigot?

There ought to be a fair test for bigotry. Couldn’t bigotry be simply defined as an expression of intolerance for another person’s point of view?

[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.

[Larv]

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.

But, IN, how do you know which form of bigotry is actually bigotry? What test can you come up with that identifies true bigotry?

[pamela]

okay Larv,
no matter what type of spin you are now putting on it, this is the same old stuff of the other threads.Is there no end to this madness?

[Larv]

Originally Posted by pamela

okay Larv,
no matter what type of spin you are now putting on it, this is the same old stuff of the other threads.Is there no end to this madness?

OK, pam, then close it down. I didn't intend to propagate more madness. I intended only to follow up on CriagD's suggestion.

btw: I'm unclear about this so-called spin. The only spin on bigotry that's been spun has come from those who are emotionally intolerant of opposing points of view

[pamela]

okay larv,
let me check out craigs suggestion, i would hate to assume anything

[Larv]

Originally Posted by pamela

okay larv,
let me check out craigs suggestion, i would hate to assume anything

pamela, this new thread is not really that close to what CraigD was talking about; he's into public-attitude statistics concerning the acceptance of legalizing gay and lesbian relations. I see it all as a matter of tolerance v. intolerance on both sides of the issue. Hence I started this thread on testing for bigotry.

Please shut it down if you think is it just creates more madness; there's been plenty of that already.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Larv

Couldn’t bigotry be simply defined as an expression of intolerance for another person’s point of view?

Yep.

As far as testing for bigotry, I'm not sure there's a good method for that. But here's a shot at it.

Suppose you came up with a list of ten highly contentious issues (abortion, death penalty, etc.) and then used that list to generate simple questions such as "How do you feel about this issue". The people being tested could respond on a scale of 1-5 (strongly disagree-strongly agree). Those that answered 1 or 5 could be seen as showing a strong predilection. But it still wouldn't show bigotry. You'd have to use that sample of people to devise another test. Perhaps it could be a computer program that shows images or text and then the person could type in a word they associate with the image or text (images and text would depict situations related to the original contentious issues). The word choices would have to be limited to something like 12 with words such as: hate, love, like, dislike, relate, can not relate, etc. Again, the extremes would be measured and a corresponding "level of bigotry" could be assigned. It would probably be a bell curve.

But what would that really tell us?
"Bigot" is such a subjective word. What defines "intolerance"? We all know it when we see it, but how do we pin it down to a black or white scenario?

I don't think anyone can.

[InfiniteNow]

There is no simple formula, as what matters most is the subject of the intolerance. Yes, many of us are intolerant of logical fallacies, poor/unsupported arguments, and the spread of falsehoods and misinformation. However, there is good reason for that.

Bigotry is more about people being different from yourself, and about casting them with all sorts of negative connotations and false attributes. Usually, bigotry applies to people who are hateful, xenophobic, and jingoistic... as those emotions they feel are not grounded in any solid reasoning nor rationality.

The point is the subject of the intolerance, and what is motivating it.


Being intolerant of lies is a good thing, and has a recognizable and practical purpose underlying it.
Being intolerant of violence or rape is a good thing, as that too has a recognizable and practical purpose underlying it.
It is these recognizable and practical purposes informing the intolerance which prevent it from being called bigotry.

Bigotry is when one is intolerant for no practical reason... usually just something like "they" are "different." Bigotry is most often felt toward foreigners and immigrants, like the Mexicans for example. It was (and sometimes still is) found in the feelings whites had toward blacks. Today, it is often found among heterosexuals and the feelings they hold toward homosexuals.

It's about the fact that these folks are being intolerant for no real practical purpose. They are being intolerant because "they" are "different." It's bigotry because it tends to be informed by jingoism and xenophobia, or some religiously motivated worldview, and has no real rational purpose underlying it.

But... intolerance which has a practical and justifiable purpose is NOT bigotry... not by any means. Just because I'm intolerant of lies, hate speech, and ignorance does not make me a bigot, since that intolerance has a justifiable and practical purpose informing it.


Just some thoughts for you to consider.

[Boerseun]

Defining "bigot" in google returns the following:

• a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own
• one who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion ...
• bigotry - the intolerance and prejudice of a bigot
• bigoted - blindly and obstinately attached to some creed or opinion and intolerant toward others; "a bigoted person"; "an outrageously bigoted point of view"
• bigoted - Being a bigot; biased; strongly prejudiced; forming opinions without just cause
• bigotry - intolerance toward those of different creeds or religious affiliations
• bigotry - The rigid intolerance of ideas or persons seen as different.

...which clearly shows that, yes, a homosexual can very well be a bigot, as well.

If you are prejudiced (a heterosexual being prejudiced against homosexuals, or a homosexual being prejudiced against heterosexuals) and intolerant without just cause, then, yes - you're a bigot.

Consider a homosexual caught with his hands in the cookie jar at work. He's tried for theft. He objects, because the judge, the prosecutor and the jury are heterosexuals and will be biased against him. His sexuality has nothing to do with the crime he is tried for, and will have no bearings as to the technicalities of the case. Yes - he is a bigot.

But so what? I fail to see the mystery here.

In as much as one gets black racists, one gets homosexual bigots and hypocrites, too.

The term "bigot", however, is being used too easily without considering the meaning of it. In many instances, those who bandy the term about are as intolerant and prejudiced as those they accuse of it. It has devolved into a knee-jerk reaction to taint the opposition's argument. So before you go about calling somebody a bigot, think very carefully about your own position and assumptions.