Chris Broussard is for lack of a better word a bigot

[Dirkadirkastan]

There are lots of stupid ideas out there, and lots of communities that buy into said stupid ideas.

But if you organize enough and gain enough political power, you can avoid criticism by labeling anyone who points out your stupid ideas as a bigot.

Got it.

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

There are lots of stupid ideas out there, and lots of communities that buy into said stupid ideas.

But if you organize enough and gain enough political power, you can avoid criticism by labeling anyone who points out your stupid ideas as a bigot.

Got it.

I think both sides of every contentious political issue (like this one) could levy those charges against their opponents. That's the problem with bigotry/intolerance accusations... they invariably cut both ways because pure tolerance must tolerate intolerance. Otherwise, we're just dealing with differently-bigoted worldviews.

But really, your concerns of 'avoiding criticism' don't really reach fruition until you try to ban/silence what you deem to be bigotry, whether through shaming, intimidation, or force (legal or otherwise). Without that aspect to the equation, you'd just have competing interests in the political realm. Perhaps censorship is the true evil we can agree to avoid.

[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by DirkFTW

I think both sides of every contentious political issue (like this one) could levy those charges against their opponents. That's the problem with bigotry/intolerance accusations... they invariably cut both ways because pure tolerance must tolerate intolerance. Otherwise, we're just dealing with differently-bigoted worldviews.

I see what you're trying to do, but it doesn't hold water. Pointing out the inherently violent and dangerous teachings of Islam is not akin to claiming homosexuals are perverts.

Do you denounce the KKK? If so, does that make you a bigot?

But really, your concerns of 'avoiding criticism' don't really reach fruition until you try to ban/silence what you deem to be bigotry, whether through shaming, intimidation, or force (legal or otherwise). Without that aspect to the equation, you'd just have competing interests in the political realm. Perhaps censorship is the true evil we can agree to avoid.

No one's trying to censor anything. What led you to that conclusion? Here's what Sean said early on:

Originally Posted by SeanL

Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism. He can say whatever bigoted hateful things he wants to, but I have a first amendment right to call him out on his bigotry.

I still have the impression that the word "bigot" has simply been thrown back at the original accuser in a meager effort to divert attention and criticism. But it's not a comparable situation.

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

I see what you're trying to do, but it doesn't hold water. Pointing out the inherently violent and dangerous teachings of Islam is not akin to claiming homosexuals are perverts.

Don't you see how this could just as easily be phrased by someone else as "taking statements in religious texts in isolation and out of context in order to paint a billion people as dangerous fanatics is not akin to explaining that someone's conduct has placed them at odds with the God of the universe?"

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

No one's trying to censor anything. What led you to that conclusion?

That seems quite naive given that many have publicly been calling for Broussard to be fired. Your own comment in an earlier post was "if you organize enough and gain enough political power, you can avoid criticism by labeling anyone who points out your stupid ideas as a bigot." How can you avoid criticism without censorship--i.e., bigoted statements are not permitted?

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

I still have the impression that the word "bigot" has simply been thrown back at the original accuser in a meager effort to divert attention and criticism. But it's not a comparable situation.

So whether something is bigotry or not depends on subjective impressions? The other side feels the same way that bigotry accusations are being used to divert attention and criticism from attacks on their constitutionally protected right to hold and practice religious beliefs.

[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by DirkFTW

Don't you see how this could just as easily be phrased by someone else as "taking statements in religious texts in isolation and out of context in order to paint a billion people as dangerous fanatics is not akin to explaining that someone's conduct has placed them at odds with the God of the universe?"

Do you understand the difference between "your belief is stupid" and "you are stupid because you hold that belief?" Only the former is present here, but your quote here is trying to twist it into the latter.

No one has a right to have their ideas go unchallenged.

That seems quite naive given that many have publicly been calling for Broussard to be fired. Your own comment in an earlier post was "if you organize enough and gain enough political power, you can avoid criticism by labeling anyone who points out your stupid ideas as a bigot." How can you avoid criticism without censorship--i.e., bigoted statements are not permitted?

I'm not sure you understood what I meant when I said that. Let me try again:

If I believe that it is my destiny to rule over my own planetary system one day, you might feel justified in calling me an idiot.

If I also believe that black people are cursed with their dark skin due to their neutrality in the battle between good and evil, you might feel justified in calling me a bigot.

If I believe all this because Joseph Smith successfully organized a large enough religion, then suddenly you are the bigot instead because you spoke ill of Mormonism.

See how that works? Why am I suddenly able to turn around and point the finger at you? Just because enough people believe the same thing I do?

So whether something is bigotry or not depends on subjective impressions? The other side feels the same way that bigotry accusations are being used to divert attention and criticism from attacks on their constitutionally protected right to hold and practice religious beliefs.

I'm talking about what specifically happened in this thread. The real issue to discuss is why speaking out against homosexuality itself is bigotry, and people are trying to divert attention away from that by pretending calling out questionable religious beliefs is somehow the same thing. It's a lame tactic and it doesn't work.

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

Do you understand the difference between "your belief is stupid" and "you are stupid because you hold that belief?" Only the former is present here, but your quote here is trying to twist it into the latter.

Perhaps I am being too subtle, but I'm pointing out how rephrasing the choice as "nice-sounding A v. horrible-sounding B" doesn't carry much weight. It's a game everyone can play to paint the other side negatively while ignoring the underlying disagreement.

And I think your dichotomy should more properly be "your belief is bigoted" vs. "you are bigoted because you hold that belief." Frankly that seems like trying to split hairs or starting off a really offensive comment with "no offense but..." I mean, look at the thread title and your attempt to discredit Mormonism as crazy.

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

No one has a right to have their ideas go unchallenged.

... But no one can challenge as bigotry the idea that religion is "stupid," "backward," and "questionable"? You have a lot of great statements on freedom of speech... you just choose to make them one-way streets which undermines the intellectual honesty.

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

The real issue to discuss is why speaking out against homosexuality itself is bigotry, and people are trying to divert attention away from that by pretending calling out questionable religious beliefs is somehow the same thing. It's a lame tactic and it doesn't work.

Let's start from here: It's not pretend.

My ultimate response to the real issue you identify is that labeling something as 'bigotry' has no real intellectual value and doesn't contribute anything. And if you go further by using bigotry labels as a means for classifying permissible and impermissible views, you risk swapping one intolerance for another--a differently-bigoted world.

In a world with diverse and diametrically opposed views, pure tolerance will be dissonant, not harmonious. So why would truly tolerant people be surprised or offended to hear intolerance?

[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by DirkFTW

Perhaps I am being too subtle, but I'm pointing out how rephrasing the choice as "nice-sounding A v. horrible-sounding B" doesn't carry much weight. It's a game everyone can play to paint the other side negatively while ignoring the underlying disagreement.

And I think your dichotomy should more properly be "your belief is bigoted" vs. "you are bigoted because you hold that belief." Frankly that seems like trying to split hairs or starting off a really offensive comment with "no offense but..." I mean, look at the thread title and your attempt to discredit Mormonism as crazy.

It's not "splitting hairs," it's the key to the whole thing.

Mormonism does indeed contain the doctrine that black people are descendants of Cain, and their skin color is a curse. Regardless of how any individual member may view blacks, do you think the belief system itself should go forever unchallenged because opposing any belief system is bigotry against its members?

... But no one can challenge as bigotry the idea that religion is "stupid," "backward," and "questionable"? You have a lot of great statements on freedom of speech... you just choose to make them one-way streets which undermines the intellectual honesty.

You can certainly challenge the idea itself, my response is that the "bigot" label isn't valid. You can't be bigoted toward a religion (or any belief system) any more than you can find the square root of a pork chop. It's because you're applying incompatible terminology.

Let's start from here: It's not pretend.

I noticed you dodged my question about the KKK. You really think that anyone who stands up to them is no more than an intolerant hypocritical bigot? Or at the very least, is just as worthy of the label as a KKK member?

My ultimate response to the real issue you identify is that labeling something as 'bigotry' has no real intellectual value and doesn't contribute anything. And if you go further by using bigotry labels as a means for classifying permissible and impermissible views, you risk swapping one intolerance for another--a differently-bigoted world.

In a world with diverse and diametrically opposed views, pure tolerance will be dissonant, not harmonious. So why would truly tolerant people be surprised or offended to hear intolerance?

You are equating belief systems to genetic identity. It's such an obvious error that I've spent too much time trying to point out over and over. Why are you having such a hard time with this?