A Question of Bigotry

[blackhawk]

Can anyone here honestly emphasis on honestly claim they have never said or did something others would consider bigoted or racist?

 

[Asclepias]

Can anyone here honestly emphasis on honestly claim they have never said or did something others would consider bigoted or racist?

What point would that make? Having sex with another man would be repulsive to me. I dont know if that makes me a bigot or not but I dont try to deny gay people their rights.

 

[blackhawk]

Can anyone here honestly emphasis on honestly claim they have never said or did something others would consider bigoted or racist?

What point would that make? Having sex with another man would be repulsive to me. I dont know if that makes me a bigot or not but I dont try to deny gay people their rights.

The point is people are always trying to label other's as this or that for whatever the reason and maybe they should spend more time looking at what kind of a person they are and less trying to label other's.

 

[Asclepias]

Can anyone here honestly emphasis on honestly claim they have never said or did something others would consider bigoted or racist?

What point would that make? Having sex with another man would be repulsive to me. I dont know if that makes me a bigot or not but I dont try to deny gay people their rights.

The point is people are always trying to label other's as this or that for whatever the reason and maybe they should spend more time looking at what kind of a person they are and less trying to label other's.

Kind of hard to do that when those people are trying to take away their right to marry. Right wing conservatives don't have to take time looking at what kind of person they are before getting married. Why should gays and the people that support them have to?

 

[blackhawk]

What point would that make? Having sex with another man would be repulsive to me. I dont know if that makes me a bigot or not but I dont try to deny gay people their rights.

The point is people are always trying to label other's as this or that for whatever the reason and maybe they should spend more time looking at what kind of a person they are and less trying to label other's.

Kind of hard to do that when those people are trying to take away their right to marry. Right wing conservatives don't have to take time looking at what kind of person they are before getting married. Why should gays and the people that support them have to?

I'm not sure getting married qualifies as a right but in any event you have elections and courts to sort that out I'm all for getting this question to the Supreme Court and getting it decided. I'm not talking about people looking at themselves and what type of person they are before getting married I'm talking about doing that before they label someone else racist or bigoted and I mean the right, left, center and everyone in between.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The point, and I'm shocked nobody has seemed to grasp it here is: both sides have their weaknesses, they both have people in their midst who insist on using the same bigotry they themselves posses. I was trying to get both sides of the political spectrum to acknowledge those elements. It is also undeniable how the left also tries to silence others through coercion, I don't see so much of it on the right, purely because they don't have all the clout in the media.

The "sides", as you're viewing them, don't actually exist. You get caught up in shit like this when you think of people in groups as opposed to individuals.

And I would ask the you prove the claim hasn't been made yet. I've read stories all over the internet about the way Phil Robertson was treated by the left, as was Brendan Eich and that Miami Dolphins football player in regards to Micheal Sam. To say people don't accost Christians and praise gays for shoving their lifestyles in their faces is an incredible claim with no merits in reality.

You started your OP with this, and proceeded to respond to it, although no liberals had actually said anything close to it:

Yes, I know, someone in this thread is bound to say, "Well Christians and Conservatives are inherently bigoted! We are tolerant!"

That is what I was referring to.

In this case, guilt by association is justified. It's like an innocent man standing in an alleyway, watching while a thug savages his victim. A party, left or right, sits by why their extremist elements war with one another, unaware of the damage they cause; unaware of their own faults. As one individual, you can't do much, but as a collective of like minded individuals, you can. It only takes one spark to light a fire. And I see the problem of "well that's not my problem" as a reason why there is so much partisanship in politics. Nobody is willing to take charge.

No, it's not. I own zero responsibility for the actions or words of anyone else, whether or not we agree politically.

If you want to feel responsible for the actions of the lunatics on the right, feel free. Make it your life's mission to save your "side".

I don't see myself as having a "side".

I advocate individual rights. You have seen me many times advocate for the rights and freedoms of gays in America. I for one don't believe in denying anyone equal protection under the law. So regardless of what my conservative friends believe individually, I do walk the walk. I am a libertarian, and that is one reason why. I have assumed the ideals and tenets of the Republicans of yore. I represent most of the conservatives on this board, and I challenge them to do the same.

You may claim to advocate and support individual rights, yet you think of people in groups, rather than as individuals. That much is very clear from your posts.

 

[Asclepias]

The point is people are always trying to label other's as this or that for whatever the reason and maybe they should spend more time looking at what kind of a person they are and less trying to label other's.

Kind of hard to do that when those people are trying to take away their right to marry. Right wing conservatives don't have to take time looking at what kind of person they are before getting married. Why should gays and the people that support them have to?

I'm not sure getting married qualifies as a right but in any event you have elections and courts to sort that out I'm all for getting this question to the Supreme Court and getting it decided. I'm not talking about people looking at themselves and what type of person they are before getting married I'm talking about doing that before they label someone else racist or bigoted and I mean the right, left, center and everyone in between.

Thats not how humans work. You bad? You go into the bigot category. You good. You are just like me and obviously ok and wise as a result. If you stop denying people things that do not affect you if they have them then you wont be labeled a bigot. Getting married is a right. The supreme court has spoken on it 14 times.

14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights

Fourteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

I've heard many times that Christians or Conservative individuals are bigots. I've heard the counterclaim that Liberals and Homosexuals are as such themselves. But I simply wish to pose a couple of questions: Using the logic that a Christian or Conservative is bigoted and anti-gay, would the Liberals be just as bigoted and anti-Christian? How can one sit there and accuse the other of being bigoted, while not acknowledging their own bigotry in return?

Yes, I know, someone in this thread is bound to say, "Well Christians and Conservatives are inherently bigoted! We are tolerant!" Well, that poses another question. Are you really? If a Christian can be accosted for speaking his mind on homosexuality, namely people like Phil Robertson or Brendan Eich, but a homosexual can be praised for shoving it in his face; is that not intolerant, or bigoted? And likewise, another will say, "No! Liberals and homosexuals are inherently bigoted! We are tolerant!" The same I ask, are you really? How can you be tolerant when you wish to deny someone equal protection under the same laws that govern you and I, simply because they are gay? Is that not intolerant or bigoted as well?

One side wishes for equality and tolerance, as does the other. Both sides say the are tolerant, but in reality they are not. Both sides want equality, but in reality they only want a society more favorable to their worldviews or religious beliefs. From my vantage point, neither side has any room to maneuver. Both sides are just as bigoted as one another. The views each side holds does not justify the behavior they exhibit towards one another. Tolerance is a two way street. You can't demand tolerance, you must earn it. So, it is a matter of: are you a bigot or not?

That's not how tolerance works. A crying baby on a crowded airplane does not earn your tolerance; you simply tolerate the baby.

What, to your mind, is entailed in tolerance? Equal treatment in public accommodation? Fair Housing? Equal Opportunity Employment? Voting Rights? ...Free Speech?

Before you couch any lack of tolerance in a post about "Free Speech", remember the aphorism:
"Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins."

The precise limits on the length over which "your arms" extend and where another person's "nose begins" varies from state to state.

 

[TemplarKormac]

can anyone here honestly emphasis on honestly claim they have never said or did something others would consider bigoted or racist?

what point would that make? Having sex with another man would be repulsive to me. I dont know if that makes me a bigot or not but i dont try to deny gay people their rights.

the point is people are always trying to label other's as this or that for whatever the reason and maybe they should spend more time looking at what kind of a person they are and less trying to label other's.

exactly!

 

[TemplarKormac]

Doc, Luissa, both of you missed the entire point of this thread. It's all about performing self introspection, not taking charge of your party, though that would be nice. Anyone can benefit from some semblance of leadership, some sort of an example. But what good are they if there is no example? Who sets it? Who gets the ball rolling?

Neither party consists of only one individual representative, they consist of a group of individuals with core set of views. That is the flaw of Doc's "sides don't exist" argument. Likewise, one individual can lead the group simply by his example alone. I personally believe one individual can change the viewpoints of many. It is all about bucking the trend, not marching in lockstep.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I've heard many times that Christians or Conservative individuals are bigots. I've heard the counterclaim that Liberals and Homosexuals are as such themselves. But I simply wish to pose a couple of questions: Using the logic that a Christian or Conservative is bigoted and anti-gay, would the Liberals be just as bigoted and anti-Christian? How can one sit there and accuse the other of being bigoted, while not acknowledging their own bigotry in return?

Yes, I know, someone in this thread is bound to say, "Well Christians and Conservatives are inherently bigoted! We are tolerant!" Well, that poses another question. Are you really? If a Christian can be accosted for speaking his mind on homosexuality, namely people like Phil Robertson or Brendan Eich, but a homosexual can be praised for shoving it in his face; is that not intolerant, or bigoted? And likewise, another will say, "No! Liberals and homosexuals are inherently bigoted! We are tolerant!" The same I ask, are you really? How can you be tolerant when you wish to deny someone equal protection under the same laws that govern you and I, simply because they are gay? Is that not intolerant or bigoted as well?

One side wishes for equality and tolerance, as does the other. Both sides say the are tolerant, but in reality they are not. Both sides want equality, but in reality they only want a society more favorable to their worldviews or religious beliefs. From my vantage point, neither side has any room to maneuver. Both sides are just as bigoted as one another. The views each side holds does not justify the behavior they exhibit towards one another. Tolerance is a two way street. You can't demand tolerance, you must earn it. So, it is a matter of: are you a bigot or not?

That's not how tolerance works. A crying baby on a crowded airplane does not earn your tolerance; you simply tolerate the baby.

What, to your mind, is entailed in tolerance? Equal treatment in public accommodation? Fair Housing? Equal Opportunity Employment? Voting Rights? ...Free Speech?

Before you couch any lack of tolerance in a post about "Free Speech", remember the aphorism:
"Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins."

The precise limits on the length over which "your arms" extend and where another person's "nose begins" varies from state to state.

Perhaps you could benefit from your own aphorism. Your rights end where mine begin. And likewise vise versa. Your right to accommodation does does not come at the expense my free speech. My tolerance of your lifestyle should not come at the expense of my beliefs.

You seem to think free speech should be limited. I don't stand for it.

 

[RKMBrown]

I wont ever apologize for not tolerating racism or gay bashing, but no it doesn't make me a bigot. That argument is tired and mostly a way for bigots to feel better about their hate. Sorry.


Thanked by Rat in the Hat

So don't apologize. Nothing tired about an argument that calls a spade a spade.

Your intolerance is no better, worse, nor different than anyone else's. It isn't "right-er" because of your beliefs. Bigotry is bigotry. Yours is the same as a Nazi's. Just aimed in a different direction.

Actually you are wrong. Being intolerant of intolerance is the greatest virtue in the world.

By george I think he's got it


Just as liberty is not the liberty to take someone's liberty.

Tolerance does not justify being tolerant of intolerance.

The point of exhibiting, seeking, and asking for tolerance is not to do others harm, but rather to remove the harms being done.

 

[Asclepias]

So don't apologize. Nothing tired about an argument that calls a spade a spade.

Your intolerance is no better, worse, nor different than anyone else's. It isn't "right-er" because of your beliefs. Bigotry is bigotry. Yours is the same as a Nazi's. Just aimed in a different direction.

Actually you are wrong. Being intolerant of intolerance is the greatest virtue in the world.

By george I think he's got it


Just as liberty is not the liberty to take someone's liberty.

Tolerance does not justify being tolerant of intolerance.

The point of exhibiting, seeking, and asking for tolerance is not to do others harm, but rather to remove the harms being done.

I knew you were smart. A little misguided sometimes but smart nonetheless.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Doc, Luissa, both of you missed the entire point of this thread. It's all about performing self introspection, not taking charge of your party, though that would be nice. Anyone can benefit from some semblance of leadership, some sort of an example. But what good are they if there is no example? Who sets it? Who gets the ball rolling?

Neither party consists of only one individual representative, they consist of a group of individuals with core set of views. That is the flaw of Doc's "sides don't exist" argument. Likewise, one individual can lead the group simply by his example alone. I personally believe one individual can change the viewpoints of many. It is all about bucking the trend, not marching in lockstep.

You're putting way to much importance to these "groups". That's the problem, because those "groups" are entirely artificial creations of your perspective. You say it's about "bucking the trend", but the "trend" doesn't actually exist.

Everyone is an individual. Whether or not they chose to self-identify to an ideology or political party, they're still individuals, with their own set of views and priorities. There are plenty of Conservatives who don't care about social issues, just like there are plenty of Liberals who support neo-con foreign policies. There are pro-life Democrats and pro-choice Republicans. There are deeply religious lefties, and gay atheist righties.

Don't waste your time trying to "clean house" in artificial and ever-shifting "groups". Instead, speak to people as individuals. Don't assume that because they identify as Democrats that they support everything that any Democrat has ever done, or the same for "Republicans", "Liberals", "Conservatives", "Libertarians" or whatever else.

 

[RKMBrown]

I've heard many times that Christians or Conservative individuals are bigots. I've heard the counterclaim that Liberals and Homosexuals are as such themselves. But I simply wish to pose a couple of questions: Using the logic that a Christian or Conservative is bigoted and anti-gay, would the Liberals be just as bigoted and anti-Christian? How can one sit there and accuse the other of being bigoted, while not acknowledging their own bigotry in return?

Yes, I know, someone in this thread is bound to say, "Well Christians and Conservatives are inherently bigoted! We are tolerant!" Well, that poses another question. Are you really? If a Christian can be accosted for speaking his mind on homosexuality, namely people like Phil Robertson or Brendan Eich, but a homosexual can be praised for shoving it in his face; is that not intolerant, or bigoted? And likewise, another will say, "No! Liberals and homosexuals are inherently bigoted! We are tolerant!" The same I ask, are you really? How can you be tolerant when you wish to deny someone equal protection under the same laws that govern you and I, simply because they are gay? Is that not intolerant or bigoted as well?

One side wishes for equality and tolerance, as does the other. Both sides say the are tolerant, but in reality they are not. Both sides want equality, but in reality they only want a society more favorable to their worldviews or religious beliefs. From my vantage point, neither side has any room to maneuver. Both sides are just as bigoted as one another. The views each side holds does not justify the behavior they exhibit towards one another. Tolerance is a two way street. You can't demand tolerance, you must earn it. So, it is a matter of: are you a bigot or not?

WRT the issue of gays vs christians, the main issue is some portions of the book teaches christians to be intolerant of gays, and other portions teach tolerance. The old stories warn the reader of doom that will befall if we allow the old testament laws to be broken. But the new testament teaches one to put down the stones, ... yet still highlights sin as sin, and judging as righteous thus giving people some justification for intolerance of gay sex.

But I see many of those old laws like don't eat from cloven animals as ancient tales that need to be taken with a grain of salt. I trust that there were ancient reasons for these laws, but I also trust that the real issue was likely one of monogamy and unclean.. well you know.

Anyhow, IMO Mr. Robertson was just saying he's not gay. I never heard him being intolerant, calling for judgement on this earth against gays or anything of the sort.

But I did hear some militant groups call for judgement on this earth against Mr. Roberson, that was intolerant.

...

If the discussion is to identify intolerance, you really don't have far to go other than to identify who is being harmed, threatened harm etc.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

Perhaps you could benefit from your own aphorism ["Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins."]. Your rights end where mine begin. And likewise vise versa. Your right to accommodation does does not come at the expense my free speech. My tolerance of your lifestyle should not come at the expense of my beliefs.

You seem to think free speech should be limited. I don't stand for it.

I don't think you really mean "Free Speech". I think what you mean is "freedom from association".

The difference may be subtle, please let me explain.
People have the right to put up posters, say supporting Palestine, in their own restauarant. That's free speech.
People don't have the right to refuse to seat a Jewish man at the lunch counter because he is Jewish. That would violate public accommodation.

The balance between freedom from association and public accommodation is complicated. What is not complicated is to expect a natural negative reaction from someone you refuse to seat at your lunch counter.

So, please, before you couch any argument in defense of exclusion in your 1st amendment rights, please remember the history of such arguments defending exclusion at lunch counters, apartment buildings, realty offices, job interviews and polling stations just to name a few.

 

[JoeB131]

Zombie Pundit, Well Put.

Guess you had extra brains for breakfast this morning.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I've heard many times that Christians or Conservative individuals are bigots. I've heard the counterclaim that Liberals and Homosexuals are as such themselves. But I simply wish to pose a couple of questions: Using the logic that a Christian or Conservative is bigoted and anti-gay, would the Liberals be just as bigoted and anti-Christian? How can one sit there and accuse the other of being bigoted, while not acknowledging their own bigotry in return?

Yes, I know, someone in this thread is bound to say, "Well Christians and Conservatives are inherently bigoted! We are tolerant!" Well, that poses another question. Are you really? If a Christian can be accosted for speaking his mind on homosexuality, namely people like Phil Robertson or Brendan Eich, but a homosexual can be praised for shoving it in his face; is that not intolerant, or bigoted? And likewise, another will say, "No! Liberals and homosexuals are inherently bigoted! We are tolerant!" The same I ask, are you really? How can you be tolerant when you wish to deny someone equal protection under the same laws that govern you and I, simply because they are gay? Is that not intolerant or bigoted as well?

One side wishes for equality and tolerance, as does the other. Both sides say the are tolerant, but in reality they are not. Both sides want equality, but in reality they only want a society more favorable to their worldviews or religious beliefs. From my vantage point, neither side has any room to maneuver. Both sides are just as bigoted as one another. The views each side holds does not justify the behavior they exhibit towards one another. Tolerance is a two way street. You can't demand tolerance, you must earn it. So, it is a matter of: are you a bigot or not?

That's not how tolerance works. A crying baby on a crowded airplane does not earn your tolerance; you simply tolerate the baby.

What, to your mind, is entailed in tolerance? Equal treatment in public accommodation? Fair Housing? Equal Opportunity Employment? Voting Rights? ...Free Speech?

Before you couch any lack of tolerance in a post about "Free Speech", remember the aphorism:
"Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins."

The precise limits on the length over which "your arms" extend and where another person's "nose begins" varies from state to state.

Perhaps you could benefit from your own aphorism. Your rights end where mine begin. And likewise vise versa. Your right to accommodation does does not come at the expense my free speech. My tolerance of your lifestyle should not come at the expense of my beliefs.

You seem to think free speech should be limited. I don't stand for it.

What one ‘seems to think’ is irrelevant, it is a fact of Constitutional case law that our rights are indeed subject to limitations, where government is at liberty to place reasonable restriction on our rights, including the right to free speech. See, e.g., Young v. American Mini Theaters, Inc. (1976), where zoning laws placing restrictions on businesses displaying sexually orientated materials are Constitutional.

Moreover, the principle of ‘free speech’ plays no role whatsoever with regard to the relationship between two private individuals, or the relationship between a private individual and private organizations; free speech legal doctrine applies only to the relationship between the citizen and his government, where the state may not seek to limit free speech absent a compelling governmental interest, predicated on objective, documented evidence, pursuant to a proper legislative end.

 

[RKMBrown]

Can anyone here honestly emphasis on honestly claim they have never said or did something others would consider bigoted or racist?

[MENTION=36422]blackhawk[/MENTION]

When I was in 3rd grade they started segregation, I told my mom the new black kids smell bad. It wasn't till I got to the 4th grade that I realized it had nothing to do with skin color.

When I was 16 I used to have a confederate flag in the back window of my car. We were crackers and loved our flag had nothing to do with black, but others would consider it racist now.

When I was 16 there were race riots in south florida, I was on the white side of that fight. 1980 Miami riots - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Oh yeah nvm I flew the flag to indicate what side I was on. Kids are stupid.

I saw myself as an archie bunker type of white guy in the 80s. I got over that when I got to college. My extended family is racially mixed. I'd lay my life down for all of my nieces and nephews. Color issues seem so stupid to me now.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

Zombie Pundit, Well Put.

Guess you had extra brains for breakfast this morning.

Zombie is as zombie does.