When is it okay to call someone a bigot or accuse them of hating?

[notyoueither]

You two are arguing about a language other than English.

However, Jon, you seem to be adding rings to the model that will keep the Earth at the centre of the universe. You are justifying some religious people imposing their view of morality on everyone else. I think we (collectively) have seen that show before, and the ending is not a good one.

[Jon Miller]

I am not justifying religious people imposing their view of morality on everyone else.

I am saying that they are not (all) bigots.

It is possible for them to be just wrong or incorrect (although probably many of the non-bigots have poorly reasoned positions).

Bigotry is based on a specific motivation, namely not understanding the other.

JM

[notyoueither]

Not underdstanding is not a motivation.

[Jon Miller]

Here are some additional reasons:

"I think that african-americans should only marry each other because only they understand each other and have crucial shared experiences"

"I think that japanese should marry japanese because that is the only way they can raise children harmoniously as japanese"

"I think that *insert religion here* should only marry together, so that they can raise children together as *insert religion here*"

People can be wrong and you can disagree with them, and yet their motivations may be their real motivations not just a cover for fear of the other or not understanding the other.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Not underdstanding is not a motivation.

It is one of the most common motivations for prejudice, and is what changes something from being just prejudice to being bigotry.

JM

[Jon Miller]

The bigots real thought processes are something like this:

"They are different from me"
"I don't understand them"
"they are mad/crazy/dangerous/etc"
"I will be prejudiced against them"

JM

[Aeson]

To be clear, discrimination on race does not imply bigot.

Discriminating based on race is unquestionably a form of bigotry. It doesn't matter why the person has come to display such bigotry, it's still a display of bigotry.

Just because someone's motivation is not reasoned correct or is stupid does not mean that isn't their real and correct motivation. I think that if you look deep enough, most peoples motivations are 'incorrectly' reasoned in some sphere.

If someone holds bigoted views or displays bigotry in their actions because of stupid reasoning, it doesn't mean they aren't a bigot. It just means they're a stupid bigot.

If we were to apply your logic... slave owners were just doing what the good book told them God planned. So they weren't bigots. Just stupid for literally believing in the Bible. And Nazis, well they thought of Jews as sub-human, so really the Holocaust wasn't any more a display of bigotry than a dog kennel is according to your logic.

But woe be unto anyone who identifies bigotry as bigotry... for they are the bigots according to Jon!

I disagree that I am being a bigot towards you.

It's good you have come to grips that you are disagreeing with yourself. (I have already said I don't think you are being a bigot towards me. It's just your inane use of bigotry would apply to your own actions.)

[Jon Miller]

Nazism and slavery in American south are some of the strongest examples of groups vilifying the other due to not understanding/seeing from the other's perspective.

You are lending support to my argument.

I already gave some examples of discrimination based on race which is not bigotry. Affirmative action is also discrimination based on race which is not bigotry.

You can disagree with something (say, affirmative action) and not describe it as bigotry.

JM

[Aeson]

"I think that african-americans should only marry each other because only they understand each other and have crucial shared experiences"

"I think that japanese should marry japanese because that is the only way they can raise children harmoniously as japanese"

"I think that *insert religion here* should only marry together, so that they can raise children together as *insert religion here*"

Those are all bigoted ideas where people choose stereotypes at the expense of the actual people involved. People who support enforcing such things are certainly bigots.

[Aeson]

Nazism and slavery in American south are some of the strongest examples of groups vilifying the other due to not understanding/seeing from the other's perspective.

You are lending support to my argument.

No, I just killed your "stupidity excuses bigotry" argument, as well as the one you proferred where calling a person's logic bigoted means you are a bigot.

I already gave some examples of discrimination based on race which is not bigotry.

They were all bigoted ideas that if enforced would certainly be bigotry.

Affirmative action is also discrimination based on race which is not bigotry.

No, it's a form of bigotry too. It's just "PC acceptable" bigotry so you don't see it.

You can disagree with something (say, affirmative action) and not describe it as bigotry.

Of course. No one has to say anything.

[Jon Miller]

Your claimed definition of bigot is not what you or others hold as seen by the title.

The title references motivation directly "accuse them of hating".

Bigotry is a hatred or fear of the other.

You might disagree with the above ideas, but they are not bigoted. They are reasoned, and based on reasoning other than 'hatred of things different me'.

I would actually argue that there is some truth to all of those beliefs (I just named). But even if there were not, it would not make the motivation change. While you might come to different conclusions to the person who said them, that doesn't make the person who said them (who thinks differently from you) a bigot.

JM

[Jon Miller]

No, I just killed your "stupidity excuses bigotry" argument, as well as the one you proferred where calling a person's logic bigoted means you are a bigot.

No you didn't. You just further demonstrated that you have problems being able to see how others think.

No wonder you were formally a bigot about race!

If you read any reputable discussion about nazis or souther slave holders which is about their motivations or psychology, you will find the diagnosis that their reasoning was based on a 'fear of the other'.

Please, talking to me without informing yourself will not be productive to either of us. You will just stay in your narrow and ignorant mindset.

JM

[Jon Miller]

I am a Christian.

I don't consider everyone a bigot who is not a Christian but raised in a Christian society. Even though I think that the reasonable thing to do is to be a Christian. Even the ones who are prejudiced against Christianity, which is common among non-Christians raised in a Christian society, are not necessarily bigoted.

They may have come to different conclusions than I. They may have had experiences or reasons which are not based on a hatred/non-tolerance of people who think differently than them to be prejudiced.

JM

[Aeson]

Your claimed definition of bigot is not what you or others hold as seen by the title.

The title references motivation directly "accuse them of hating".

| != &

Bigotry is a hatred or fear of the other.

No. Hatred and fear are not required in the definition of bigotry.

[Jon Miller]

bigotry is:
intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself:

According to this definition I am displaying bigotry towards you about your bigotry towards others.

But I maintain that the above definition (which is in oxford dictionary) is not best. This is because bigotry has very negative connotations.

I think that:
intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself due to not understanding people being able to have different opinions from oneself:
is better. Which basically comes down to (based on psychology/etc) fear/hatred towards the 'other'.

JM