Chris Broussard is for lack of a better word a bigot

[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?

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

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?
...
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.

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.

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

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?
...
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?

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?)

And what do you mean by Mormon beliefs going 'unchallenged'? (Lots of people disagree with Mormonism today). This seems premised on the belief that bigotry must be prohibited... which goes back to my original question(s) regarding bigotry accusations towards religious teachings: do you want to dictate acceptable doctrine to the Mormons? Do you want to rewrite the Book of Mormon or perhaps edit sermons and Sunday school lessons? Do you want to penalize some Mormon beliefs or perhaps prohibit Mormonism altogether? Do you want to ridicule and bully their members until they renounce their faith? If that doesn't work, do you turn to force and/or force of law? How would any of that be prettier or different than the bigotry you find so ugly?

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 assumption regarding why you brought up the specifics of Mormonism and the KKK is that you are hoping to use them as examples of 'crazies' that deserve collective hatred/shaming/bullying/censorship (and therefore it can't be 'bigotry' because it is 'acceptable').

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.

[Thespiralgoeson]

Originally Posted by DirkFTW

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.

I think any mature adult can at least agree to this much. While I don't agree with fundamentalist Christianity's stance on homosexuality, name calling certainly doesn't help anybody. I do think that people need to be held accountable for (what I see as) intolerant, misguided, and harmful beliefs. But yes, everyone should be tactful and civil in order for any kind of debate to be productive.

[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by DirkFTW

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...

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.

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.