Overuse of the term 'bigot'

Freiheit

Am I alone in feeling that this is a grossly overused term in society?. It is the legitimate right of people to agree or disagree after reasoned analysis. Yet it appears this term is used to deride people with genuine concern, here and elsewhere. I resent it's use a badge of convenience to deride varying opinons. People who don't embrace all forms of diversity are deemed biggots. For me a bigot is someone who without analysis, is blindly prejudiced against a person or people, but if they analyse it and still disagree that is not bigotry. Am I right or am I wrong or how is bogotry defined?.

MagicMarker

bigoted |ˈbigətid|
adjective
obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one's own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions : a bigoted group of reactionaries.
• expressing or characterized by prejudice and intolerance : a thoughtless and bigoted article.

Denerick

Nice to see you stewing over it

Dictionary.com defines a bigot as: 'a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.'

Believing, for example,* that Islam is a dangerous religion and that its adherents have what is coming to them with relation to banning the burka for perceived intolerance from them (As in, having a belief that Islam as an homogenous whole is without tolerance or diversity - contrary to historical facts as presented from various quarters) as a generalised group, would probably make you a bigot.

*This of course is not directed at anyone in particular :P

Freiheit

Those are not my words Denerick, they are words put into my mouth. It is a problem, I've seen it throughout the media, in Ireland and elsewhere, people who legitimately disagree are conveniently dismissed as biggots. Don't think you've got under my skin, not at all, your of no concern to me. But it is a trend in society in general that I've noticed and it's wrong.

Denerick

Freiheit wrote: »

Those are not my words Denerick, they are words put into my mouth. It is a problem, I've seen it throughout the media, in Ireland and elsewhere, people who legitimately disagree are conveniently dismissed as biggots.

Why is it only ever the bigots who complain about being the victims of political correctness?

looksee

Freiheit wrote: »

Am I alone in feeling that this is a grossly overused term in society?. It is the legitimate right of people to agree or disagree after reasoned analysis. Yet it appears this term is used to deride people with genuine concern, here and elsewhere. I resent it's use a badge of convenience to deride varying opinons. People who don't embrace all forms of diversity are deemed biggots. For me a bigot is someone who without analysis, is blindly prejudiced against a person or people, but if they analyse it and still disagree that is not bigotry. Am I right or am I wrong or how is bogotry defined?.

I would have thought that a bigot would analyse by his own reasoning and having analysed could thus still be bigotted, in that his opinion is extreme and irrational against someone with different beliefs than his own. For example the 'Baptist church' in the US that hold demonstrations against homosexuals, the Government etc have considered and analysed their beliefs, and are still bigots.

I can't say I have noticed it being overused particularly.

MagicMarker

I don't think I've seen anyone use the term bigot except for on Boards and on TV!

Wolfe Tone

Denerick wrote: »

Why is it only ever the bigots who complain about being the victims of political correctness?

Haha, That was funny.

If the thread spirals off in that vein it will sure end well!

Eliot Rosewater

Denerick wrote: »

Why is it only ever the bigots who complain about being the victims of political correctness?

I think that's mostly true, but not always.

In either scenario, I see no need for the PC lobby who, by and large, are simply out to censor people. Fact is, if someone is bizarre enough to call for, say, the flag of Islam to be raised over the Dail they don't need someone to shut them up: they're doing a mighty fine job of looking like an idiot themselves.

This week an invitation that had been given to the BNP's Nick Griffith to attend some royal lawn party was rescinded. An op-ed in the Guardian made the good point that it was unnecessary: better to let Nick Griffith go to the party and make an arse of himself there.

The point is if that someone is saying something that deserves to be criticised it will be, and they will be discredited. The PC lobby becomes a bane when one is unable to discuss emotive topics reasonably.

My main concern is the overuse of "racism", especially where there's absolutely no racism involved

Denerick

I'd largely agree with that. But were I to meet Nick Griffen in person, I'd likely call him a bigot. If I had a few drinks in me he'd probably be called something much harsher. Surely there isn't anything wrong with that?

When PC is used to stifle debate, its bad. I'm probably guilty of that on occassion but most of the time its a reaction to some pretty ridiculous comments that don't really add much to the collective intelligence of mankind.

Eliot Rosewater

There's still nothing wrong with saying "you're making a gob****e of yourself, you better shut up." The problem is when people force people to be silenced. I am reminded of the story in UCC a year or two ago when protesters from Coir invaded a lecture theatre and prevented a scientist giving a speech on euthanasia.

That's nothing more than censorship.

twinQuins

The problem comes when people cry oppression when really their irrational opinions are, rightfully, criticised.
All too often they fail to realise that freedom of speech is a two-way street: they can say what they like (within reason, of course) and likewise, people are free to criticise it.

If you're not willing to stand by your words under criticism then that's your problem, don't project it onto the rest of society.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Manach

Whilst in the US there is the 1st ammendment, this does not necessarily protect fully diviergent opionins. For example on the right, McCartyism and on the left, Bork's confirmation hearing.

southsiderosie

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I think that's mostly true, but not always.

In either scenario, I see no need for the PC lobby who, by and large, are simply out to censor people. Fact is, if someone is bizarre enough to call for, say, the flag of Islam to be raised over the Dail they don't need someone to shut them up: they're doing a mighty fine job of looking like an idiot themselves.

This week an invitation that had been given to the BNP's Nick Griffith to attend some royal lawn party was rescinded. An op-ed in the Guardian made the good point that it was unnecessary: better to let Nick Griffith go to the party and make an arse of himself there.

The point is if that someone is saying something that deserves to be criticised it will be, and they will be discredited. The PC lobby becomes a bane when one is unable to discuss emotive topics reasonably.

I agree that sometimes people need to step back and let racist people hang themselves with their own rope. That said, if someone says something that is obviously incorrect or deliberately misleading, they should be called on it. I've noticed, particularly in threads or conversations about immigration, people make anti-immigration statements that are'based' on 'facts' that just aren't true ("They just show up and take our welfare!!!"). Then when you call them on it, you're blasted for being PC.

It's one thing to make a statement about different races and ethnicities based on uncomfortable truths - we shouldn't be afraid to engage in a serious discussion then. But too often these kinds of statements aren't based on some kind of greater societal facts or truth, they are based on one-off observations or stereotypes, and the resolution offered is little more than send them home/nuke them all/they're animals anyway.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Denerick

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Have you read Edward Gibbon's 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'? G.R. Eltons 'Tudor Revolution in Government'?

Its rather silly throwing book titles around at each other like this...

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Denerick

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And here was me thinking that Elton was relatively obscure. What are you, a renaissance man?

Wolfe Tone

Gibbons work is quite inaccurate unfortunately.


Mentioning books is like name dropping imo. Not cool.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Denerick

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Gibbons work is quite inaccurate unfortunately.


Mentioning books is like name dropping imo. Not cool.

I was actually criticising DonegalFella for namedropping a book.

Gibbon was inaccurate but he was writing in the 18th century, so don't hold that against him.

Denerick

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Its funny how that has become a relatively mainstream view now. He got a lot of criticism for highlighting Cromwell in such a way but even in the last decade Cromwells role has been better understood due to a raft of new books (Not to mention Wolf Hall by Hilary Mantel, which helped make him something of a household name) I wrote an essay about Elton in university for historiography. A funny fellow.

Wolfe Tone

Denerick wrote: »

I was actually criticising DonegalFella for namedropping a book.

Gibbon was inaccurate but he was writing in the 18th century, so don't hold that against him.

I know mate, just the Gibbon comment was at you


I know, I have a really nice abridged and illustrated copy at home, one of my favorite books. First "modern" history book, set the formula for everything that followed.

philologos

MagicMarker wrote: »

bigoted |ˈbigətid|
adjective
obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one's own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions : a bigoted group of reactionaries.
• expressing or characterized by prejudice and intolerance : a thoughtless and bigoted article.

This definition could characterise a majority of posters on Boards. Or a majority of people in any way opinionated.

Valmont

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Go on, tell us what you are writing! What else is there to do in west Donegal?

Denerick

Valmont wrote: »

Go on, tell us what you are writing! What else is there to do in west Donegal?

Shag the seals? Thats about the only thing I can think of off the top of my head. And I spend a lot of time in Donegal.

Valmont

Denerick wrote: »

Shag the seals?

Hey, it beats the Wicklow sheep!

eblistic

Jakkass wrote: »

This definition could characterise a majority of posters on Boards. Or a majority of people in any way opinionated.

Agreed. It is a bit of an unusable term by those definitions isn't it? As soon as you call someone else's opinion bigoted you're declaring a sort of intolerance of it... And on it goes.

Tolerance is an often misused concept also. There are plenty of ideas that, arguably, the discussion of which should be tolerated, if we believe in free-speech and thought, but should never be allowed to be put into practice.

Lastly, bigoted views and calling views bigoted are both usually protected by the free speech concept aren't they? I know, in law, hate-speech clauses often blurs the lines a bit there but in general?

I've always believed that a bigot was more about an unreasonable dislike, fear, hatred of a religion or social section. For example, If people can show me why (in logical terms) they dislike Islam then I wouldn't particularly be inclined to call them a bigot. But then in some areas, I probably am a bigot by the pure dictionary explanation. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it though.

Denerick

Deleted User wrote: »

I've always believed that a bigot was more about an unreasonable dislike, fear, hatred of a religion or social section. For example, If people can show me why (in logical terms) they dislike Islam then I wouldn't particularly be inclined to call them a bigot. But then in some areas, I probably am a bigot by the pure dictionary explanation. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it though.

There is nothing wrong with disliking Islam the religion. There is everything wrong with generalising hundreds of millions of people based on whatever higher deity it is they profess a belief in. Islam seems to be the last fully acceptable bigotry to have.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Denerick wrote: »

Why is it only ever the bigots who complain about being the victims of political correctness?

Jeremy: But look at it another way, we've all got our foibles. I mean, I, for example hate mozzarella.
Mark: It's not the same.
Jeremy: It is kind of the same. I mean, aren't we supposed to be living in a multicultural democracy? And isn't that the point? You know, the Jews, the Muslims and the racists all living together happily side by side, doing and saying whatever the hell they like?

djpbarry

I'd be inclined to say that 'PC' is overused to a far greater extent than 'bigot', certainly on this site at least. That's not to say there does not exist idiot reactionaries who will accuse you of being racist for choosing a latte over a mocha, but I find the overly-liberal use of the term 'PC' to be far more common, often by individuals espousing obviously bigoted beliefs, ironically.

djpbarry

eblistic wrote: »

As soon as you call someone else's opinion bigoted you're declaring a sort of intolerance of it... And on it goes.

Aye, the perpetual bigotry paradox.