RESOLVED: NO tolerance for bigotry on DU

[pinboy3niner]

I tend to be non-confrontational here, taking a gentle approach to dealing with posters with whom I disagree. I don't go looking for battles.

But lately, I've been getting fed up with some minority expressions of bigotry here on civil rights issues, from gay equality, to immigration, to religious freedom.

I'm pretty sure that I'm not alone in feeling that these expressions of bigotry are getting out of hand. Sometimes it comes from trolls, but, surprisingly, it also comes from starred, thousand-post-plus members.

I don't think my avoidance of confrontation, or 'gentle' discussion, is working. And on some controversial threads, many of us are silent.

What I propose is a zero tolerance policy for bigotry of any kind. That we (including me) speak up and challenge bigotry instead of skipping on to other threads. That we take one moment to give voice to what we really think, and how we really feel.

This is not to chastise, as I'm as guilty as anyone of not jumping in to challenge when I could have. Sometimes others have taken on that responsibility, without my support. NO MORE. I'm getting fed up and pissed off. And I think others in our 'silent majority' may feel the same way.

I could be wrong. But I don't think so. I don't believe DUers are inclined to tolerate this crap here any more than I am.

[beam me up scottie]

1. No more Mr. Nice Guy?

Agreed, we have an obligation to confront it here and everywhere.

[pinboy3niner]

47. LOL! "No more Mr. nice guy"

Has a nice ring to it. :)

[leftofcool]

2. Anything anyone says that is in disagreement with another

DUer could be misconstrued as bigotry, even if it isn't. So, actually giving voice as to how one really feels about a given issue may not be a good idea, lest one be accused of bigotry. I am more of a moderate Dem on some issues, very liberal on others. I think for myself and refuse to walk lockstep with every liberal issue but on DU, I have learned it is best not to speak out

[Confusious]

14. Not speaking out makes you a bigot, sorry.

Don't make me do it, it's obvious.

[leftofcool]

19. On which issue? There are thousands!

[Confusious]

30. On all of them obviously

And you're making me do it to.

:sarcasm:

[Scuba]

25. Agree with you on everything or be labeled a bigot?

I don't agree. So how am I a bigot?

[Confusious]

28. OK, you're making me do it

:sarcasm:

[Scuba]

31. LOL Thanks. n/t

[pinboy3niner]

37. What????

We disagree on issues constantly here, without bigotry being involved. Mere disagreement doesn't equate to bigotry, and our fellow members know that.

That's the lamest excuse I've seen for not speaking out in the threads.

[leftofcool]

56. Some fellow members know it, others don't

Do I really need to speak out on a message board when I can call out bigotry in real life, up close and personal like........which by the way, I am really good at. Ask the asshole repuke downstairs.

[leveymg]

3. A lot of bigotry comes from people who view themselves as victims, rightly or wrongly,

and it's often hard to argue with people who have honest, but misdirected, rage at social effects, such as unemployment, about which many feel a genuine and justifiable sense of victimization.

The problem is that victims, out of a sense of helplessness in the face of truly powerful institutions -- such as the multinational banks and corporations that really dominate America -- often blame other victims, such as immigrants.

Unless there's an apparent error in their argument or they're abusing another DU member, I tend to leave people who are in pain and lashing out alone in their little circles of misery. Most bigots are simply wounded and pathetic victims.

[pinboy3niner]

6. That's true

But some who, for example, scapegoat illegal immigrants because their trade and their own job prospects and wages have suffered are misdirecting their blame.

They have a valid complaint. But who is really to blame--the undocumented worker, or the businesses that recruit in Mexico and displace American workers and intentionally convert their jobs for illegal immigrants only?

[leveymg]

10. The idea behind trade policy was that the US had a competitive advantage in highly-skilled services

and high value-added products, such as Information Technology, financial services, biotechnology and aerospace. The idea was that a rising tide at the top would lift all boats. That model now seems somewhat outdated.

The essential problem, as I see it, is that the cost of obtaining the high-level skills and credentials required for Americans to remain competitive in the global marketplace have become prohibitively expensive to all but a tiny elite. If there is one industry in America that most needs reform -- to bring costs down and expand the numbers of those served -- it is higher education and the systems of professional credentialization. Of course, that approach would be resisted by elite institutions and professions as a threat to their monopolies and guild systems.

A highly-educated population is less likely to tolerate, and better equipped to fight against, the predatory behaviors of the oligarchs and the elites who serve them.

[meow mix]

4. -rec for only defending your favored groups.

love the selective outrage.

[pinboy3niner]

9. "Selective outrage"? "Favored groups"?

I admit I mentioned gays and immigrants--two groups subject to bigotry. You can interpret "religious freedom" how you like, but most here will see it as an obvious reference to anti-Muslim bigotry.

Whom did I leave out of my "favored groups"? If you have something to add, please share it.

[pipoman]

11. As I thought

the anti-Christian bigotry is what is rampant. The anti-Muslim stuff gets screamed down while the anti-Christian stuff is fully accepted. Are you willing to enter and call out anti-Christian bigotry too?

[JonLP24]

18. Really?

I figured there was little to no Muslims on DU because of how much Anti-Muslim stuff is posted and goes unchallenged. Yes it does get stuffed down when obvious or in the latest example of the community center in Manhattan but that is what I see that is "rampant". I can't dispute what you see as I don't make it to %5 of all threads posted here but I haven't seen very much of anti-Christian bigotry as compared to anti-Muslim kind.

[leftofcool]

21. In my 7 or so years of posting on DU, I have seen quite a bit

of anti-Christian bigotry. I am not talking about the obvious and pathetic actions of the Freddie Phelps crowd (they aren't real Christians). I myself am not a Christian, but those who are must also have their respect and say even when I see their beliefs as being ridiculous.

[pinboy3niner]

51. Mostly, it seems anti-religion

Christians may get a lot of attention when they lash out ("the "war on Christmas," etc.), but for the most part, the criticism of Christianity here seems to be non-discriminatory. The objection is to religion, not any one faith.

[WolverineDG]

53. What DU have you been reading?

Non-discriminatory? Are you joking? Were you here over Easter weekend, when those bigoted against Christianity were given free reign to post as many offensive posts as they could?

And have you ever visited Religion/Theology?

dg

[walldude]

75. LMFAO... Oh please..

so when a religion which claims that 95% of Americans follow them, tells me, and I quote: "if you are not born again, if you do not take Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior and follow all our rules you will spend all of eternity burning in fiery damnation" and I tell them they are a laughable group of myth followers who have lost their fucking minds.. that's bigotry?

[pipoman]

92. As I said below, If one agrees with the bigotry, then it is just telling the truth...

[pipi_k]

45. How about unfavored groups?

No more tolerance for anti-teacher posts.

Or anti-cop posts.

No more laughing at, or denigrating, "fat people"

No more broad-brush statements like "All Republicans are _________"


just to name a few.

[Turborama]

95. No more tolerance for anti-teacher posts. - Check

Or anti-cop posts. Check (Depends on the context, though)

No more laughing at, or denigrating, "fat people" - Check.

No more broad-brush statements like "All Republicans are _________" - Depends what the ________ is.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

55. Gotta check that dog whistle. It's leaking into the audible frequencies.

It should emit nothing above 20 KHz.

[bluestateguy]

5. Everybody will agree with that in principle

But you will never get universal agreement as to what constitutes bigotry, other than the very obvious (calling someone a "n______" for example).

We all, for example, have different opinions about tactics. What is the best tactic to achieve marriage equality? Disagreeing with someone about the best way to achieve the goal is not necessarily bigotry.

[Turborama]

7. K&R for a call for DUers to take action against bigotry

For all those arguing about semantics. Obvious bigotry is obvious.

[JonLP24]

8. +1

[pipoman]

12. Unless you happen to agree with it,

then it is merely truth.

[Turborama]

39. Let's go for the Miriam Webster definition...

Main Entry: 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.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

Only bigots would agree with another's bigotry and see their shared prejudices, hatred and intolerance of other racial or ethnic groups as "truth".

[KamaAina]

83. It's "Merriam-Webster"

although "Miriam Webster" would be an awesome name for a "Marian the Librarian"-style drag queen! :-)

[Turborama]

85. Dupe self delete

n/t

[Turborama]

86. Oops!

Thanks for pointing it out. That would be a great name, but do you think Marian would be better than Mirian? ;-)

[pipoman]

94. Exactly

"Only bigots would agree with another's bigotry and see their shared prejudices, hatred and intolerance of other racial or ethnic groups as "truth"."

I would add, then trying to justify their bigotry as something else, like logic, as in post #75 above.

[blondeatlast]

54. +1. nt

[Lint Head]

13. Is it possible to be bigoted against bigots?

[Confusious]

15. I wouldn't do that if I were you

that'll throw you into an endless loop until your head explodes. Wouldn't want to get people nearby all messy would you?

[Confusious]

16. A resolution needs more then one person

And a definition of bigotry on this board is a pretty low bar.

If I say, for example, I don't trust religious people, I have been told I'm a bigot. Of course, it doesn't meet the definition of bigotry by Webster's, but to a person on this board, I'm a bigot, none the less.

[pinboy3niner]

24. Total BS

Obviously, "more than one person" agreed.

And I seriously doubt that anyone on this board has called you a bigot merely for distrusting "religious people". Your bigotry must be based on something else.

[Confusious]

26. Nope, I got called a bigot for distrusting religous people.

And I see only one OP. He/she is resolving for all of us. While I might agree with his/her ideals, I don't like people speaking for me without my permission. Usually, they start saying things I don't agree with. I also find it more then arrogant that he/she thinks they're important enough to speak for all of us without first being told they can do so.

Unfortunately, when I did a search, seems the topic I was called a bigot on was deleted, but if you do a search for 'confusious' and 'bigot' you can see the leftovers.

[pinboy3niner]

34. So you believe you were once called a bigot unfairly

I firmly believe we can call bigoted statements for what they are.

We may not call an individual a bigot, but we can call out bigoted statements.

Are you disageeing that we should call out racism and bigotry expressed here?

[Confusious]

38. Did you read my last post?

"While I might agree with his/her ideals"

I don't like people speaking for me without my permission. Usually, they start saying things I don't agree with. I also find it more then arrogant that he/she thinks they're important enough to speak for all of us without first being told they can do so.

Just because I agree with an ideal doesn't give you blanket rights to use my name if you want.

Besides that I also find it preaching to the choir, which also rubs me the wrong way. You're calling out people who already agree with you. Your time would be better served elsewhere, to put it in polite terms.

He/she - you

[Upton]

17. Isn't the "silent majority" a term that comes from the Nixon Administration?

Perhaps you should worry about your own posts instead of sitting in judgment of others.

[pinboy3niner]

22. You may view calling out racism and bigotry as "sitting in judgment"

But sometimes you have to call a spade a spade.

As for my own posts, I rarely do an OP, other than to post a news article, editorial, or op-ed. Why do you think I should be "worried" about opposing bigotry? Is there a particular issue about which you're sensitive?

[leftofcool]

23. Is it always necessary to "call out people" for their bigotry?

Isn't it possible for some of us to oppose and combat bigotry in other ways?

[pinboy3niner]

29. What "other ways"

When a bigoted statement is made here, the only choice is to challenge it or let it go.

[leftofcool]

49. But, my life doesn't revolve around DU and I am rarely here.

As well, I read very few posts. I have found other ways than message boards for combating bigotry. Real life ways.

[pinboy3niner]

57. Good for you

And more power to you! :thumbsup:

[leftofcool]

58. Thank ya, darlin'

Wish I had more power.

[Evasporque]

20. I have zero tolerance of zero tolerance....

nt

[pipi_k]

48. So do I...it's the same type of stupid mindset that

gets little grade school kids in trouble for having plastic knives for cutting fruit in their lunch boxes.

That shuts down a young girl's lemonade stand because she doesn't have the "proper permits".

And other idiocy.

[leftofcool]

52. That lemonade stand thing really pissed me off!

[DailyGrind51]

27. Except when it targets Christians or any persons of faith, "moderates", 'Boomers, or fat people?

[pinboy3niner]

60. It doesn't have exceptions

But it does have to be discriminatory. Usually, that means it's targeted at a minority group.

'Boomers' hits close to home, but I'd have a hard time calling intergeneratonal warfare 'bigotry'.

[woo me with science]

76. or the police? nt

[woo me with science]

77. pit bulls, Olive Garden fans, meat eaters, smokers? nt

[Silent3]

32. So, according to your rules...

...just how much am I "allowed" to voice disagreements with religious dogma and what I view as superstition and irrationality until I MUST be called on it for supposed "bigotry"?

'Cause gosh, golly, I sure want to make sure I don't stray outside of the fence posts you've staked out.

[pinboy3niner]

33. What rules did I set?

If your disdainment of religion or people of faith is not discriminatory, I wouldn't call that bigotry. You have a lot of company here. And that discussion was not at all what I had in mind when I made my post.

My intention was not to stake out fence posts, nor to make rules. If you took it that way, was that my error, or yours?

[AspenRose]

35. I bet you didn't expect to get a fight on your hands for such a suggestion,

did you? Especially here in our diverse, accepting liberal oasis.

:sarcasm:

[JonLP24]

36. I did

Even before this thread got a single reply. I even expected this to be hit hard by 'unrecs'.

[Confusious]

40. It's an Fing circle jerk post. nt

[pinboy3niner]

46. Only to someone who has an interest in sabotaging it. nt

[Confusious]

78. So I don't like circle jerks, so now I'm the enemy.

Way to win friends and influence people.

How may progressive flags should I be flying at my home? Is it the right size? Do I sing the progressive song loud enough comrade?

[pinboy3niner]

43. Call me naive

I never expected that the bigots would come out for this party. Live and learn... :)

[Confusious]

44. Yes, yes of course

As someone else said above, if we don't agree with you, we're bigots. If we don't participate in your circle jerk, we're bigots.

[LanternWaste]

96. The Zero-Sum Trap strikes again.

The Zero-Sum Trap strikes again.

[Turborama]

64. I think it's providing a useful service

For the mods and admins to see who is prepared to stand up to bigotry and who is willing to defend it. Hopefully notes are being taken.

[pipi_k]

66. Donations!!!!

We need a telethon to raise money for notebooks and pencils for all the notes the admins and mods are going to be taking!!!

I'm series!!!111

[Turborama]

72. No need

Excel is very user friendly for things like this.

[Confusious]

79. How may progressive flags should I be flying at my home?

Is it the right size? Do I sing the progressive loud enough? Should I sing louder and be more enthusiastic comrade?

[Turborama]

87. Not exactly sure what you mean

I wasn't talking about conformity. I was talking about those who stand up to bigotry versus those who defend it. There is a difference.

[Confusious]

88. And you consider this standing up to it?

When the post I was responding to was:

'I never expected that the bigots would come out for this party. Live and learn..'

My post was to highlight the point. If you don't wave that flag high enough, fast enough, or enthusiastically enough, you're going to be called a bigot, and he proved it with that post.

[Turborama]

89. That wasn't the post you were responding to...

This is...

Post #64.
I think it's providing a useful service

by Turborama
For the mods and admins to see who is prepared to stand up to bigotry and who is willing to defend it. Hopefully notes are being taken.

[Confusious]

90. I just noticed that

you're providing a valuable foot service in the hunt for the witches.

'For the mods and admins to see who is prepared to stand up to bigotry and who is willing to defend it.'

Yes lets. How'd you like his definition? You're not quite enthusiastic enough. Or loud enough. So you must be a bigot. And again, he proved it with his post.

[Turborama]

91. I'm not interested in anyone in particular's definition

I go by the dictionary definition, such as the one I posted here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8906716&mesg_id=8907292

[Confusious]

93. Which, unless I'm the slow guy around here, I rarely see.

And the people usually get booted quick. To darn quick. I never get to have any fun.

If you go by the definition in the dictionary, NP. Some others around here don't. They have a much 'looser' definition.

[blondeatlast]

62. No kidding--I don't get the pre-emptive defensiveness.

I guess pinboy's post touched some thin-skinned nerves. :wow:

[Confusious]

80. No, it's if you don't sing the progressive anthem loud enough

or enthusiastic enough, you're not one of us. It's divisive and looking for witches.

Also called 'forced patriotism' or in this case 'forced progressivism'

I don't respond well to being forced at anything.

[Davis_X_Machina]

41. You have to carve out exceptions...

..for Catholics, fat people, smokers, gun skeptics,

Or the board will be a wasteland.

[pipi_k]

42. Here's the problem with that...

Who's the judge of what "bigotry is"?


It's easy enough to recognize in its more blatant forms, but there are times here when someone makes a remark that someone else takes the wrong way, or projects his or her own feelings on, and then all hell breaks loose.

[KansasVoter]

50. So who is going to determine what is bigotry vs. valid discussion? Dumb!

[blondeatlast]

61. The reader. If you think a point isn't bigotry and someone is saying it is,

why not debate them?

That's kinda the point of a "discussion" board, I think.

[pipi_k]

63. That, I think is fine, and is the point of a discussion board, but...

what I understand the OP saying is that there should be "zero tolerance" for bigotry, and that everyone should step up to end it.

And those who don't, maybe because they don't agree with someone else's opinion, well, they're basically being called "bigots" by the OP. Maybe not overtly, but the implication is there.

Someone saying, "Look, this sounded like bigotry to me, let's discuss it" is way different from someone saying, "Let's all stamp out bigotry, and I'll be the judge of what bigotry is".

Even if that second option is not being said overtly, it IS what is being implied.

And it sucks.

[JonLP24]

67. I don't see that implication at all

He twice talked about himself as leaving remarks unchallenged and thought he should speak up more often when we see it and encouraging others to do the same. Not if you don't you're a bigot. Encouraging is much different than that.

I don't take offense to at all to what the OP said and if that is the implication I should. Sometimes I read a remark so bigoted I get so mad I can't think. I want to say something but the words don't come. I usually let other DUers respond to that poster and they do a damn good job. They put I'm thinking and feeling into words and so much more and I thank those for that. I've often thought at length why I don't say anything (most of the time) and can't think of any good reason. I accept the OP's challenge.

[pipi_k]

68. Well, you probably missed this then...

Post #43



I never expected that the bigots would come out for this party. Live and learn... :)


People are asking what I think are sensible questions, like who is supposed to be the judge of what "bigotry" is, does it include ALL groups, etc.

And, OK, I was wrong...it's not implied...it's actually being said...people are being called "bigots" right here in this thread.

[JonLP24]

74. I did miss it

I'll say there is no indication that he was talking about people asking those questions though it very well could be. Not disputing that. The OP may notice a poster who has a history of such of type of posts posting in this very thread. I don't know. I'll repeat that you could very well be right. However there isn't a clear cut example of who he is referring to. I agree people are being called "bigots" but it isn't clear what for exactly. I hope you understand what I'm saying. I'm half-way agreeing but suggesting asking reasonable questions may not be the reason that poster referred to whoever it was as "bigots".

[blondeatlast]

"I usually let others respond..." I know what you mean, but I've

lately realized that that means the hate goes unchallenged. I was the same for a long time (although if baltant enough I would alert) and have been startled to go back to the thread hours or a day later and find that no one has--and then regretted not challenging the hate/ignorance.

So lately, I've been meeting it head on. If I can't think of a good reply at least I can alert--but I think it is high time to do more.

[blondeatlast]

59. I don't tolerate reverse political correctness in my own life (as in, it's okay for

someone to tell that racist/sexist/homophobic/etc. joke--it's NOT okay for anyone else to call it out) and I certainly am not going to take it at a website I partly come to for respite for all the hate I encounter here in Arizona on a daily basis.


Damn right I will call out the hate on DU.

k/r

[pipi_k]

65. As I said above...

sometimes the "offenses" are blatant.

Sometimes they're not so obvious.


One thing we have to remember when we're "calling out" anything is that it doesn't do to be rude or obnoxious about it. I'm not saying you are, or that you would be.

And really, unless the "offense" is so obvious a grade schooler could recognize it, sometimes it's best to keep one's mouth shut because it's not for anyone else to judge what may merely be one's own sensitivities projected onto someone else.

[lynne]

69. OK. But first please define "Bigotry" as it would apply at DU -

- because it seems that anyone who may disagree on any issue with the president will eventually be called a racist and anyone who thinks illegal immigration is a valid issue will sooner or later be called a bigot. Sadly, the words racist and bigot have become so over-used here that their meaning is diminished.

[blondeatlast]

70. Bigotry is in the eye of the beholder. Skinner said one had better have a thick skin

to participate at DU and it is true. I'm a Xtian and I've taken some huge hits--blanket statements, outright hatred, condescension, etc--but that also means I have to stand for my brothers and sisters, so I call out hate and ignorance when I see it with no apologies.

[Iggo]

71. Zero tolerance for zero tolerance. (n/t)

[aikoaiko]

73. bigot: a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Bigotry is defined as the actions of a bigot.

Is this really what you are against?

see:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigot

[Confusious]

81. No, he's just against what he defines it as. nt

[Greyhound]

82. K&U. Intolerance leads to bigotry and dsicrimination.

[MilesColtrane]

84. I just alert on them.

The thing about most bigots I've found is that debating them almost never results in their seeing the error of their ways.

Better to just point them out and let the Mods flush them.

[MellowDem]

97. That'll never happen...

people will bend their definition of bigotry to be as selective or as general as they want. For me, if someone is using the logic of bigotry, then it's bigotry. Why, someone on here has already stated they don't trust religious people. Just substitute "religious" for "black" and you have what would be considered bald-faced bigotry. But the thing is, the comments and the logic behind them are essentially the same.

Most of the accepted bigotry on here is directed towards religious people and cops. Just read a thread about a bad cop doing something awful or some rightous religious person and you will see the bigoted responses. They usually are the minority, but they are rarely, if ever called out. I'd imagine you would get see a similar reaction at FR when there is a thread about a Muslim or black person doing something bad. The blanket statements come flying out, not to mention the insults (PIGS!!!11!!). Whenever I see the word pig, I know where the conversation is going. It's a great dog whistle.

Bigoted thinking is alive and well on DU, unfortunately.

[Confusious]

98. That was me, about the religous people

Doesn't mean there might be some I like or are friends with. Just means if I just met them, they have a larger hurdle to jump in me trusting them then if they were not.

I've just been around to long, seen to many charlatans, to many of them just hate, hate, hate.

[MellowDem]

99. It's still a bigoted reaction...

based on steryotypes from your experiences or from what you have been taught (and believe) to be true. Most bigoted logic is explained in terms of personal experiences with a certain group. It's natural for humans to steryotype and generalize. So negative experiences rightly can lead one to pattern those experiences to try and identify danger easily in the future. This pretty much requires generalizing and steryotyping. The only real cure is to gain empathy and knowledge about those groups that one feels compelled to steryotype. Then it is impossible to reconcile what you actually know from real experience with one's assumptions. It's a big reason why those who know someone who is gay personally are much more likely to support equal rights for them.

As it is though, it seems like you do indeed trust some religious people. It is just that they might take longer to gain your trust. At least you are honest about your feelings.

I understand where the charlatan steryotype of religious people comes from, but I have met enough to have seen that many are not like that at all. Indeed, some of the most sincere people I know are religious. And very loving towards all and not judgemental either. But if someone's experience is dominated by the "God hates Fags" people, their views may be very different.

[Confusious]

101. Liked your post

Just one thing. 'black' as a substitute for 'religious' doesn't really work. You can't change the fact that you are black, yellow, gay, straight.

You can change your hair color, your clothes, your religion. If you don't like a behavior, do you call it 'bigoted.?' "I'm bigoted toward people who allow their dog to shit on my lawn." Really low bar there, wouldn't you say?

[MellowDem]

103. Depends on your definition of bigot I suppose....

Of course the analogy is not exactly the same, nor the situations. Just the logic, IMHO. Whether or not the group someone is bigoted towards is something they have control over or not, the reasoning for their dislike of that group is based on prejudice.

For something like your example, you don't like people who let dogs poop on your lawn. So it seems quite logical (and not bigoted) to not like a person that you know lets their dog poop on your lawn. Your feelings are based on knowledge of their actions and you are not prejudging them.

Not liking all cops because of some of the abuses you have seen comitted by them in the news is not logical. You are judging someone without the proper knowledge to know if they abuse others, pre-judging basically, and many people in that profession do not abuse others. That is what makes it bigoted. It's prejudice.

So, as many ask, aren't we bigoted towards bigots? Or Nazis? Or something along that line of thinking? And the answer is that no, we aren't, because those opinions about bigots, or Nazis, etc., are not based on pre-judgements. We know they are a Nazi, or a bigot, and with that fact, we know that they are intolerant, hateful people. If you don't like intolerant, hateful people, then it is quite logical to not like Nazis and bigots, who by their own beliefs are intolerant and hateful.

[Confusious]

108. Not that there is any relation, but what about

People addicted to drugs? If you don't trust them, are you bigoted?

The definition requires:

A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. The correct use of the term requires the elements of intolerance, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.

intolerance:

lack of toleration; unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, persons of different races or backgrounds, etc.

animosity:

ill will or resentment tending toward active hostility : an antagonistic attitude

Distrust does not really rise to any of those levels. Seems there's some 'loosening' of the definition going on.

[MellowDem]

109. Like I said, depends on your defintion of it...

Some people may think you need to have lots of hatred to be bigoted. Just somewhat disliking (or not trusting) a group seems too lukewarm of a reaction to call it bigotry to them. To me, if you distrust a whole group, there has to be some animosity towards them. It's rare to like someone you don't trust. And there is a reason, usually based on negative opinions, for not trusting someone.

For me, the only real requirement is irrationality. There is almost always some level of animosity regardless based on prejudices. And intolerance seems to be inherent in the rational of bigoted thinking. If one has negative opinions and prejudices about a whole group, then it is hard for me to see where one has respect for that group. I think it is quite possible to "respect" someone a person is bigoted towards to their face, but still not respect their beliefs or race etc. in one's mind. That is still intolerance to me. And it is based off of irrational thinking. The irrational thinking is the source of the problem. It is from where the animosity and the intolernace are justified. It is the prejudice. If you don't pre-judge whole groups based on steryotypes, one's own experiences, other's opinions, etc., it's impossible to be a bigot.

Some groups that other DUers belong to on here are pre-judged by the actions of a few often enough that I'm sure it leaves a bitter taste in their mouths, to say the least. We should be more aware of our prejudices and our bigoted thinking. I don't think using bigoted rationales automatically puts someone on the level of a Nazi for example. But we do need to recognize when we are pre-judging and try and change our mindset.

[Bullet1987]

100. I know exactly what the OP means

It doesn't help when you have people like Bill Maher and Christopher Hitchens that has made it ok to bash and attack people for believing in a God. Don't get ke wrong, I like Maher a lot. But Ive said time and time again that he goes overboard in his religion-bashing...it's a real turnoff. I've been called a Right-Winger on DU just for defending peoples right to practice their religion.

[Electric Monk]

105. Couldn't have anything to do with calling yourself "Bullet".

I'll pray for you :)

[TexasObserver]

102. The ALERT icon and the RULES deal with your concerns.

It's against the rules to call anyone here a bigot or to label their argument bigotry. It's easy to spot that one.

It's against the rules to post bigoted material, but that's not such an easy one to spot. The zealots among us, of whom there are many, feel that anyone disagreeing with them about anything is evidence of bigotry.

If you find a post that you think is bigoted, you are told to alert on it. If the mods don't agree with you that day on that post, well, there's your ruling. Starting a thread about bigotry is calling out those with whom you disagree, which is a rule violation.

[scheming daemons]

104. While I agree with you, I will unrec any thread that begins with the word "Resolved:"

It is an arrogant way to frame your point. You have no monopoly on "truth", and you have no right to claim something that is a matter of opinion as "resolved".

[pipoman]

106. Good point...

this thread proves this is anything but "Resolved"..

[Warren DeMontague]

107. I liked the one about "Resolved: Meat Eating is INDEFENSIBLE blah blah bladee blah bla"

That was fun. Wonder where it went?

[iamthebandfanman]

110. equality isnt an option

when entering DU ;)