This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Are you a bigot if you are biased against bigots?
Have you been told that you need to respect other people's right to be disrespectful?
If you turn up to counter-protest the, hmm, [insert diplomatic word here] from the Westboro Baptist Church or participate in Anti-racist actions, are you indeed intolerant of intolerant people?
Is it even a legitimate concept?
(I'm only leaving it open for 2 weeks in case it crosses into scary territory,)
Thomas Jones 100+
THE RIGHT WORD
An "enthusiast" displays an intense and eager interest in something (: a sky-diving enthusiast).
A "fanatic" is not only intense and eager but possibly irrational in his or her enthusiasm; fanatic suggests extreme devotion and a willingness to go to any length to maintain or carry out one's beliefs (: a fly-fishing fanatic who hired a helicopter to reach his favorite stream).
A "zealot" exhibits not only extreme devotion but vehement activity in support of a cause or goal (: a feminist zealot who spent most of her time campaigning for women's rights).
An "extremist" is a supporter of extreme doctrines or practices, particularly in a political context (: a paramilitary extremist who anticipated the overthrow of the government).
But it is the "bigot" who causes the most trouble, exhibiting obstinate and often blind devotion to his or her beliefs and opinions. In contrast to fanatic and zealot, the term bigot implies intolerance and contempt for those who do not agree (: a bigot who could not accept his daughter's decision to marry outside her religion).
--------------------
So, I guess if you are biased against bigots, you are not really a bigot, unless you are intolerant and contemptuous of those who are not also biased against bigots.
-------------------
QUOTE: "Have you been told that you need to respect other people's right to be disrespectful?"
No. But I was once called dogmatic because I suggested science could disprove particular passages contained in a Holy book. (Apparently, I hold a dogmatic belief in science. Who knew?)
Gisela McKay 30+
It has always seemed transparent to me that when people say things like "you are not tolerant of my right to hold (and express) my opinion" (usually involving their superiority over "lefties", blacks, immigrants, whoever) they really aren't making a plea for you to be tolerant, just hoping to trip you up in their pseudo-logic as pertains your "hypocrisy".
Despite the transparency, it's really hard to succinctly point out the reason their logic disintegrates.
I think this works.
thomas bengtsson
Mr. Anony mouse
anthony bruni 30+
tishe Hires 10+
Tim blackburn 30+
so i think you can disagree with a bigot and not be a bigot. to disagree would lead me to assume that you thought about it, and then came to a conclusion. a bigot wouldnt, once they heard your opinion and heard it was not of there own, they would immediatly begin the shit storm of hate.
Gisela McKay 30+
I'm pretty obstinate and intolerant about not letting people get away with that crap in my presence as well. (In a business setting I have pointedly walked out of the room rather than just go off on someone - but it's had the same effect.)
If the definition were a checklist, that would be "check. check. check." Does it make a difference whether it's a conscious decision to be that way? As in, I can't really expect other people to speak up about crap happening in their presence if I don't do it myself.
Tim blackburn 30+
i think there does. theres a level of intent at that point, imo.
Ed Schulte 50+
"Like can only apprehend like" Plotinus
if you have a reaction to an exterior elemental it is because you have it within you
Krisztián Pintér 200+
basically that statement denies the possibility of being a good person by choice. i bet 5000 dollars that it is false.
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Debra Smith 200+
Thomas Jones 100+
-----------------
Like all "pithy sayings" this one has its limitations but it is actually very applicable - cognitively, psychologically, even physically.
It is even practical in its application. There is a "rule of thumb" in advertising: If you are introducing a new idea or product, your target market must see or hear the message about 14 times before it will "register." Before then, it is not "seen or heard."
Colin Blakemore and Grahame Cooper raised kittens in environments that had, either, only horizontal or vertical visual stimuli (stripes) - Kittens raised with only vertical stripes were never able to "see" horizontal stimuli. For example, they would walk into a stair, rather than ascend it, and so on.
Apparently, we only see what we know.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
"we see only what we know" is a denial of learning. another obviously false statement, which somehow strikes the audience as deep.
this kind of "entertainment" wisdom is called "deepity" by dan dennett. deepity by definition is a phrase that has two meanings. one of them is true, but trivial and obvious. the other is very profound, but false. the mind first contemplates the first meaning, confirms its validity, then it grasps the deeper meaning, and wow, shock sets in.
constructing such deepities is kind of expected from an artist. it is part of the job. however, citing such deepities in a serious context is an error.
Thomas Jones 100+
I find Mr Dennett's work to be ... deepity. Although to be fair, I haven't delved too deeply into his deepities.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Thomas Jones 100+
Now, lest I break a rule: Is there anything you would like to explain?
Is there some reason you feel Goethe and Plotinus might have gotten it all wrong?
Or does it all come down to the fact that you "can't find any meaning to it?"
Krisztián Pintér 200+
"Like can only apprehend like" - denies the possibility of being a good person by choice
"We see only what we know" - is a denial of learning
(i didn't type these in. i copy'n'pasted from above.)
Thomas Jones 100+
How?
QUOTE: "We see only what we know" - is a denial of learning"
No, it's actually one of the foundations of teaching, and therefore, of learning: Start with something "known" and expand, extend, and extrapolate. It is also why we use metaphor.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Thomas Jones 100+
Don't worry Krisztián - I don't really see it as my job to understand you.
So this is what we have so far:
You have an opinion, well two, really:
1) Like can only apprehend like" - denies the possibility of being a good person by choice. And:
2) "We see only what we know" - is a denial of learning.
And they are based on ... your opinion. (And they might be countering the dreaded deepity!)
We also have two, relatively low-tier philosophers, Goethe and Plotinus, who have expressed a dissenting opinion.
Advantage: Krisztián (I mean they're dead and things may have changed.)
Now, we have research from education, marketing, and psychology (Blakemore and Cooper, 1970) that weighs in in favour of ... Goethe and Plotinus ... and advantage is ... OMG ... it's Krisztián.
He has pulled out a surprise victory ... it's the classic shot: "i believe these are quite clear." Virtually unassailable.
I resign.
Gisela McKay 30+
As I already pointed out, the limitation of that first claim is that it implies that we cannot correctly infer intent - even in the face of explication.
Gisela McKay 30+
A secondary effect of this argument would be that the recipient of bigotry would only recognize it as bigotry if he himself was also a bigot. Effectively, you are claiming that if you aren't a bigot, you wouldn't understand when someone walked up to you and called you whatever ethnic slur befits your background.
That seems more like the inability to parse the intent of the person speaking the slur, which would a neurological failure (perhaps mirror neurons not firing, or something amiss in the communications centre) rather than a superior moral or other character aspect.
It would almost imply that people on the Autism spectrum are superior.
Thomas Jones 100+
I do. (And you will note - the authorities "lost" the round.)
QUOTE: "Goethe may have been amazing, but it does not automatically make everything he says correct."
I agree. And I do not accept everything he says as correct - in fact, I disagree with much of what he says. However, in this case, I think experience, and research, in education, commerce, and psychology, trump authority (but not opinion - in this particular instance, with this particular person, at this particular time. And I don't mean Goethe.)
QUOTE: " ... the limitation of that first claim is that it implies that we cannot correctly infer intent - even in the face of explication."
It is an interesting question. How would one infer intent in the face of explication - what would the process be?
Gisela McKay 30+
A developmentally delayed child being bullied by neighbourhood children.
Like meeting unlike - but understanding fully the emotional import of the words, even without understanding the specific words. Adding the understanding of the specific words is simply further undermining the premise.
One does not need to feel hate to understand that others do.
Thomas Jones 100+
The known: understanding fully the emotional import.
The unknown: the (new) words.
How are the new words given meaning? By association with a known (emotion.)
Gisela McKay 30+
"Imbecile" has several definitions that are not the sum of the emotional import. One can understand that something negative is implied, and not understand the specific contextual definition.
Thomas Jones 100+
Thomas Jones 100+
As a thought experiment: How would you explain the process of a newborn baby coming to an eventual understanding of the word "imbecile?"
I have done a similar "experiment" (although I didn't use a particular word) and found the outcome ... interesting.
Gisela McKay 30+
I'm not even sure at what point kids fully understand the word, but I would suspect the best way to figure it out would be to work backward - through an understanding of intelligence, and through a (parallel?) understanding of hierarchy.
Thomas Jones 100+
This depends, to a degree, on culture. As far as I know the "first word" almost all of us learn is a noun - Ma Ma. Once we get past that, there is a "divergence."
"Western" kids typically learn more nouns. "Eastern" kids learn more verbs with an implied emphasis on relationship.
If you are game, take an "emotion word" and, as you suggest, work backwards until you find its root in your own psyche. This is not about etymology; it's about finding how we assign meaning to our own "primordial" emotion words.
I found the exercise edifying.
-------------
EDIT: By the the way, though this might sound like an exercise out of the Esalen Institute (and might even have residual benefits befitting a new age retreat) my intention was simply to find out how we imbue words with meaning.
Gisela McKay 30+
Mirror neurons, the area in the brain that allows even the blind (those with impaired visual cortices or routes to that area of the brain) to detect emotion on the faces of those who are present, this is something that is very hard-wired in us.
How much is learned vs instinct?
Thomas Jones 100+
[Because of a set of unusual circumstances, my earliest memories are from about 18 months of age - maybe earlier. The quality of the memory is quite unique.]
Gisela McKay 30+
Thomas Jones 100+
Before 18 months?
I'm not exactly sure ... even the 18 months is a guess. (I wasn't keeping a journal at that time!)
I suspect my earliest memory is actually at about six months or so.
I was hospitalized for most of the first five years of my life. The medical treatment I received was ... traumatic. The environment was extreme. As a result, I have vivd memories.
Not all of them "bad" - gifts I received, the boy in the next bed (he died I was told later in life,) and so on. But there are a "deeper" set of memories that are harder to define; they were established when I was pre-verbal so they are not "word-pictures." It is these memories - "experiences" is probably a better word - that are at the foundation of my cognition.
Tim blackburn 30+
i dont give them the chance and ignore them.
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Tim blackburn 30+
but i dont hate them.
Gisela McKay 30+
How did smoking come to be less socially acceptable? How did racism, sexism, or any other ism that has changed?
Certainly not by ignoring it.
For something to become unacceptable, someone had to speak up first.
Tim blackburn 30+
Gisela McKay 30+
Which, to be sure, is where the member of the WBC already are.
Tim blackburn 30+
Krisztián Pintér 200+
another question is manners. one might argue that even if you don't respect other people's views, you must talk in a polite way. but politeness is part of etiquette. it is similar to rules like don't swear, don't go to a wedding in jogging and tennis shoes. it is not a central issue in a debate. if someone starts to talk about such things too much, we can safely assume that this person is out of arguments on the real issue, and just drops in a red herring.
Helen Hupe 30+
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Krisztián Pintér 200+
you know, it is hard to tell it to someone who fell between two tribes :)
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Gisela McKay 30+
I have only come to one conclusion: maintaining a place within the structure requires such a massive suspension of disbelief and logic that they are perfectly capable of holding two diametrically-opposed concepts in their minds at one time - and they can't understand why others don't.
You are both probably too young to get the reference to Star Trek (TOS) but I keep waiting for them to have a breakdown like one of Harry Mudd's femmebots once they start processing the logical ramifications.
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Debra Smith 200+
Gisela McKay 30+
Matthieu Miossec 100+