View Single Post
Old 05-14-2013, 10:04 PM   #124
Dirkadirkastan
Diamond Member
 
Dirkadirkastan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,214
Dirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkFTW View Post
I guess I'm having a hard time believing that someone would actually think it's impossible to be bigoted against a religion, and I hoped to get you to see otherwise. My understanding of bigotry is larger than just genetics (i.e., includes religion, language, and nationality). Maybe you really dislike the possibility of being viewed as a bigot, so you want to re-define bigotry to exclude your views. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on what constitutes bigotry.
I thought you considered it a useless label. Now you want to use it in a broader sense? OK...

Quote:
I didn't dodge it; I thought it tangential to the conversation and a distraction. And given our disagreement on what bigotry even is, I'm not sure discussing the particular views of Mormons or the KKK do more than invite many more tangential questions that avoid the core disagreement. (Do you define the KKK as a religion. If not, what about secret societies like the Masons--can people opposed to them be bigots too? What about people who think global warming is a hoax and a part of a great conspiracy? Creationists? Must the KKK's views be banned/silenced or can I just disagree with them? Does my disagreement have to include ridicule and shaming in order to be acceptable? Are they really hypocrites or is that another negative-sounding label that they 'deserve' because they are KKK? Am I allowed to try to reason with them to change their mind? If reasoning fails, what am I required to do then to be seen as 'tolerant'? Do I have to get physical with them if words are not enough?)
I don't know why you keep bringing up this crap about "silencing" anybody. There has been no talk from me about legislating against their free speech. Everyone has a right to be hateful, and I have a right to call out their hate speech. That doesn't mean there's no fundamental difference between challenging ideas and claiming genetic superiority.

That's what I find most disturbing about your position. It doesn't look like you see any fundamental difference between the KKK's hatred of blacks and my own denouncement of the KKK. It's as if you think all ideas are worthy of equal respect and we just have minor philosophical differences.

I find their position despicable. Yet according to you, that makes me just as hateful, and therefore a hypocrite.

Quote:
And here we are again at the foundational disagreement as to the definition of 'bigotry', where you seem to think mistreating someone based on their religion is never bigotry.

My point is still this: calling people names like 'bigot' isn't really intellectually useful. It may feel good in a juvenile sense, but you're not trying to change anyone's mind at that point. And if you're hoping to go a step (or more) further towards bullying and censorship to forcibly make people change their minds or religious beliefs... well that's rather intolerant and 'medieval'. Hardly the sunshine and rainbows that are advertised for the new world order.
Ultimately, I don't care what terms you want to apply to any of this. But putting down someone's genetic qualities is in my mind different from (and worse than) denouncing any beliefs they may have. Your point from the beginning is that they are somehow the same.
Dirkadirkastan is offline   Reply With Quote