Bigoted/Intolerant, plus other discussion beginning on p6

[Agent Minivann]

Originally Posted by Cavalier

Add me to the list. I really don't like that particular piece of "holiday cheer".

Speaking of lists. I just thought of something that I need to add to one.

[Nooblar]

Thanks, guys. I knew I could count on you...and handled in true Scaper style, too! After that kind of discussion I begin to understand why common sense is being sucked out of most of the world.

And in defense of the film, isn't it the noble thing to do to forgive someone who is truly repentant? I mean, Santa only had that mindset because that's how it was always done. Need stealth? Then a glowing nose can be a bad thing. I think Santa's more an example of entrenched, old-thinking management than bigotry.

[ewabbie]

Santa is pretty much a jerk in the whole movie until the end and he needs something from Rudolph.

The elves want to sing their song for Santa and he just says: "Well, let's get this over with". And during the song he is not paying much attention and seems tired of the whole thing. Then he calls the song silly. Not to respectful of the slave elves he has working for him.

Then when Santa sees Rudolph in the reindeer games, he loves what he sees. But when his fake nose falls off and the other reindeer tease him, Santa yells at Donner (like it is the fathers fault) and says he should be ashamed of himself. And of course Comet is no help. He won't let Rudolph play with the other kids anymore. What kind of coach is that? It's not like he shot himself in the leg at a bar where there are strick gun control laws or something.

Then Santa poses for these publicity shots like he and Rudolph are good friends.

</IMG>

[jbbnbsmith]

Originally Posted by Nooblar

Thanks, guys. I knew I could count on you...and handled in true Scaper style, too! After that kind of discussion I begin to understand why common sense is being sucked out of most of the world.

And in defense of the film, isn't it the noble thing to do to forgive someone who is truly repentant? I mean, Santa only had that mindset because that's how it was always done. Need stealth? Then a glowing nose can be a bad thing. I think Santa's more an example of entrenched, old-thinking management than bigotry.

I was joking about Rudolf cussing out Santa.

Yes, of course forgiveness is the noble path. That's why Rudolf is the protagonist in the show. I just was commenting on how it seems a bit strange that Santa would be one of the main antagonists in a children's holiday special, especially since he is not portrayed as one in the song upon which the show was based.

But come on...in the scene where the young reindeer are learning to fly, after Rudolf has a tremendous first flight his fake nose falls off. Upon seeing Rudolf's red nose, Santa turns to Donnor and says "You should be ashamed of yourself!" He also comes across as generally grumpy, disinterested, and mean to the elves. Sorry, but I'm sticking with my original "jerk" assessment.

"Elf" is a similar story of a misfit, but Santa is always very positive toward Buddy throughout the whole film, not just when he realizes he needs him for something.

Edit: Beaten by Ewabbie! We seem to be of like mind on the matter.

[Bannister]

Originally Posted by Jexik

The interesting thing to me about this definition is that someone can be a bigot for thinking that racists and fundies are idiots. It does make sense, but some open minded individuals aren't so open minded, so they too can be bigots.

If someone is being bigoted and you call them on it, is that bigotry?

Guy #1: Gay's shouldn't marry! Blacks shouldn't vote! Women should be in the home! Foreigners should get out!

Guy #2: Wow! Those are some really bigoted ideas you have there.

Guy #1: Yeah, well you are a bigot for being intolerant of my hatred of other's not like me!

Guy #2: Umh? Ok? You're an idiot.

Guy #1: See! See! I am being oppressed!


I keep re-reading this and my mind tells me that there must be some line between open mindedness and intolerance towards bigoted / intolerant people. I keep coming back to the thought that I don't think being bigoted or racist really qualifies as it's own group. Does it?

Mostly you have pretty defined groups:

Racial:
White, Black, Yellow, Red
Religious:
Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Pastafarian, etc...
Sexual:
Man, Woman
Sexual Orientation:
Gay, Not Gay

What about racists / bigots?
Racist, Not Racist?

I know it's a P.C. world but are we really so far gone that we have to sit back and watch certain groups of people be singled out and discriminated against and not atleast put a name to it for fear of being labeled ourselves? In what way are bigoted ideals being oppressed? Bigot's have the same free speech freedom's as everyone else. Bigot's have the right to assemble just like everyone else. Bigot's can vote, carry firearms and marry (unless they are gay bigot's).

Someone help me see the line that I know must exist here. At what point does calling bigoted actions or comments bigotry go from calling it accurately what it is, to bigotry in it's own right?

Bannister
PS.
big·ot
Pronunciation: \ˈbi-gət\
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
Date: 1660
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

[Aldin]

Originally Posted by Bannister

a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

I think this is both the answer AND what makes it such a tricky and touchy subject. Due to the fish in water syndrome, people are rarely aware that they are obstinately or intolerantly devoted to their own opinions and prejudices. Worse, to correctly label someone a bigot demands that we know them well enough to determine if they are satisfying both clauses:

1) That they are unwilling to consider differing viewpoints

and

2) That they are being obstinate about an opinion or prejudice rather than a fact or line of logic.

Tough calls.

~Aldin, obdurately

[Bill Newby]

"Pastafarian ..."? The worship of spaghetti?

[jbbnbsmith]

Originally Posted by Bill Newby

"Pastafarian ..."? The worship of spaghetti?

Close.

[Bannister]

Originally Posted by Aldin

I think this is both the answer AND what makes it such a tricky and touchy subject. Due to the fish in water syndrome, people are rarely aware that they are obstinately or intolerantly devoted to their own opinions and prejudices. Worse, to correctly label someone a bigot demands that we know them well enough to determine if they are satisfying both clauses:

1) That they are unwilling to consider differing viewpoints

and

2) That they are being obstinate about an opinion or prejudice rather than a fact or line of logic.

Tough calls.

~Aldin, obdurately

I completely agree that this is a tricky and touchy subject. Like I said, I am sure that there must be a line to cross. I am just not sure what that line is.

I don't think I agree with you on how well you have to know someone however. If I see a group of guys in white hoods, I don't really need to know anything else about them to call them bigots. If I see someone making discriminating comments about a group of people then I don't need any more information about them to know that the comments that they are making are bigoted. The person may be making these comments based on religion, nationality, whatever.. but no matter what the justification for the comment, it would still be bigoted.

If I hear some say "I hate black people!" What is the other viewpoint? What would be the fact or line of logic?

I would also say that there is a distinction between being a bigoted person and making bigoted comments.

If it is my opinion and or prejudice that bigotry in all forms is wrong, have I then crossed the line into bigotry of bigots?

Originally Posted by Bill Newby

"Pastafarian ..."? The worship of spaghetti?

Are you sir trying to oppress me because of my religious affiliation! I don't go around going "Christians..."? The worship of Chris Farley? Now do I!!!

Bannister

[Aldin]

Originally Posted by Bannister

I don't think I agree with you on how well you have to know someone however. If I see a group of guys in white hoods, I don't really need to know anything else about them to call them bigots. If I see someone making discriminating comments about a group of people then I don't need any more information about them to know that the comments that they are making are bigoted. The person may be making these comments based on religion, nationality, whatever.. but no matter what the justification for the comment, it would still be bigoted.

If I hear some say "I hate black people!" What is the other viewpoint? What would be the fact or line of logic?

Just for fun and to demonstrate that we may not know what we think we know:

Guys in white hoods: Ghost costumes. Different cultural background. Attempt to change perceptions.

discriminating comments: Who determines what rises to the level of discrimination?

I hate black people: Talking about people who treat others "blackly". Meant satiricaly. Overstating based on a particular personal experience.

I'm not saying you wouldn't probably be right, just that you wouldn't necessarily be right. And these are the most clear cut examples. Someone who says "I don't think anyone should be able to be married to someone of the same gender" may have any of a multitude of reasons for this some of which would be bigoted and some of which wouldn't be.

~Aldin, walking a mile in Joe's shoes

[Bannister]

Originally Posted by Aldin

I'm not saying you wouldn't probably be right, just that you wouldn't necessarily be right. And these are the most clear cut examples. Someone who says "I don't think anyone should be able to be married to someone of the same gender" may have any of a multitude of reasons for this some of which would be bigoted and some of which wouldn't be.

~Aldin, walking a mile in Joe's shoes

I know you aren't being completely serious with your examples but it's pretty easy to tell the difference between kids in ghost costumes in October and grown mean in July chanting white supremacy slogans.
I also think there is a difference that is very easy to recognize between "your mood is very black today" and "Kill all the N******!"

I really don't see a way to say gay people shouldn't get married in a non-bigoted way. Just because the justification is religious doesn't make it less bigoted.

You have a group of people who define marriage in a specific way fighting to keep people who view it differently from being able to marry. It doesn't matter if that view point is "Blacks shouldn't marry whites" or "Gays shouldn't marry". It would still be discrimination against a group of people because they are different using religious doctrine as the foundation for your argument.

Racism is racism, intolerance is intolerance and bigotry is bigotry regardless of the justification used to arrive at those positions.

Bannister

PS. God hates shrimp. That made my week.

[Snotwalker 8000]

I don't know... I've always viewed the "intolerant" label as a never ending mobius strip which, when thrown into debates/discussions, does nothing but reduce the intellectual level of the conversation to base name-calling and emotional cheap-shots to slander and besmirch someone of an opposing view... which in and of itself seems to be a bigoted action.



What just kills me is this time of the year when some members of the "tolerant" crowd do their best to remove anything "Christmas" from the public eye... which to me just sounds like: "Because we're tolerant, we want to ban Christmas trees.".... uh..... what?

It just seems that extreme tolerance always leads one back to a position of extreme intolerance in efforts to be tolerant.

The gay community is intolerant of the will of the American people in not redefining what is uniquely known to be marriage: the union of a man and a woman.

BUT, the pro-marriage crowd is not necessarily bigoted as the definition would suggest, because the vast majority are perfectly fine, myself included, in providing all equal rights in civil unions, which denies the gay community no civil rights whatsoever... and the right to "change a definition" is not a civil right, IMHO.

Anyway, I would just like to see these slanderous words removed from the public discussion, because they add nothing of value and reduce the discourse to base name-calling and devaluing of the very thing sought after: tolerance.

PS: the Santa thing in Rudolph has always bothered me too! Glad to hear I'm not the only one.

SW8K