Are we all bigots?

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

apees human
_at nose classfied?_
ooh go cheks anyway apes no read gurd ors much anythang a eons up latest best eva productions etc tis long ans othin read tis ans
_here buckata wata-
ooh how murch?
_no say nothin but rain taday_
ooooooooh

pinkyou

 

[Cormac135]

I like to think i'm not.

 

[Cormac135]

I like to think i'm not.

Darn it, forgot aboot the Canadians

 

[Vitamin]

Why do so many people take a single word and use it as a pejorative to describe a complex nuanced situation?

Let us instead say:

"There are people who have hardline Christian evangelist views which lead them to reject homosexuality based on scripture. They are very closed-minded about tolerating anything outside their own world."

"There are people who have socially right-wing political opinions which lead them to reject homosexuality based on ideology. They are very closed-minded about social progressiveness outside of their world."

'bigot''s usage is becoming exactly the same as how the word 'racist' is becoming used - i.e. words that have been co-opted by the ideological far-left and are used as a convenient method of shutting down debate and slandering people, without ever having to debate or rationalise.

Oh, I see. So "close-minded" should become the new "bigot". Just like "mentally challenged" became the new "retarded", and "little people" the new "midget".

Yeah, that'll change things.

 

[johaninsc]

,o
You should know. I invariably am the recipient of you intolerance of my opinions. I will in the future, no doubt , have many occasions, upon which to remind you of this post.

 

[JPGhost]

Everyone is free speech ..

if it's not about their own shit.

must have to do something about it

 

[rareboy]

,o
You should know. I invariably am the recipient of you intolerance of my opinions. I will in the future, no doubt , have many occasions, upon which to remind you of this post.

Oh Bullshit.

We all have to tolerate your right wing reactionary positions and racist nonsense daily here on JUB.

Your problem is that like all your fellow travellers, you hate being called out on it.

 

[rareboy]

The op specifically asked about subconscious bias with regards to race. The word bigot was quite apropos. There's also the general social context of a word which you've totally ignored. 'Bigot' isn't used merely for differing opinions these days, hasn't been for several decades. Well, unless you're talking to Ben up there. Dictionaries take ages to catch up when they include social nuances to definitions.

It was not apropos. Bigotry is not subconscious bias toward or against tribes

And excuse the incorrect use of bigotry all you want. The fact is, based on its root origin, actual definition and use over centuries ....it is not the right term to use to describe racism. Just because the poorly educated decide that it now means something else does not excuse using it to describe possible innate behavioural responses.

 

[Benvolio]

Oh Bullshit.

We all have to tolerate your right wing reactionary positions and racist nonsense daily here on JUB.

Your problem is that like all your fellow travellers, you hate being called out on it.

This is an example of you tolerance? Like all bigots, you don't like being called out on your bigotry.

 

[rareboy]

Oh for fuck's sake Benvolio.

People tolerated Hitler and look how that turned out for Europe.

I have no problem with being branded a liberal bigot if it means that I'm on the side of the angels. And I'll have no problem continuing to push back against the narrow minded and exclusionary policies that you spout.

Bring it.

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

I think you all are missing the point. The research shows that the bias exists at the subconscious level. One can consciously tell oneself to not be bigoted all one wants. One has no control over one's subconscious.

I think this is non-sense and only serves to try to rationalize ones "bigotry" or racism.

 

[zombiekiller]

I think this is non-sense and only serves to try to rationalize ones "bigotry" or racism.

Why do you think the research is nonsense?

 

[Benvolio]

Why do you think the research is nonsense?

Most social research is conducted to support some kind of agenda. Any research can be designed to support an agenda or a point of view. If it does not support the conductors point of view, there is always the shredder.

 

[Benvolio]

I see no attempt by the researchers in question to deal with the fact that a black man is statistically more likely to be involved in violent crime than a white. If he appears to be going for a gun, a black is statistically more likely to be doing so than a white. Blacks are only 15% of people but comity more than half the violent crime. No attempt is made to deal with the greater hostility young blacks have to the cops than do whites. As liberals the researchers adhere to the dogma that it it only a stereotype-- not a statistical probability.

 

[luckynumbah7]

I think this is non-sense and only serves to try to rationalize ones "bigotry" or racism.

Like every other form of learning, the various bits and bobs your subconscious picks up is due to repetition. Info doesn't need to be accurate to be repeated and there's no shortage of tropes people get bombarded with.

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

As liberals the researchers adhere to the dogma that it it only a stereotype-- not a statistical probability.

The problem here isn't liberals, it is racists who try to hide their racism under statistics.

Why do you think the research is nonsense?

I already said why. It tries to rationalize or excuse "bigotry" and/or racism. Its to make the average joe who makes a racist comment think to himself "It's OK, we're all a little bit racist. It is out of my control."

 

[luckynumbah7]

It was not apropos. Bigotry is not subconscious bias toward or against tribes

And excuse the incorrect use of bigotry all you want. The fact is, based on its root origin, actual definition and use over centuries ....it is not the right term to use to describe racism. Just because the poorly educated decide that it now means something else does not excuse using it to describe possible innate behavioural responses.

Did someone else describe it as an an innate response or did you pick that word because of the social connotations when you read things like pairing the words 'no control' with 'subconscious'? Because 'no control' plus 'subconcious' doesn't equal innate, or inborn, if you prefer. The root origin of most of English isn't the same as current definitions, particularly when you remember English is a translated hodgepodge. Subconscious is created, not innate. I think you'd be unpleasantly shocked at the list of words that have morphed and changed over the years, some of them frighteningly quick.

 

[luckynumbah7]

Regarding the rest of the thread I'll also rush in to point out that just because you can't 'turn something off' at will doesn't mean it is your choice to be influenced by it*. Black and white thinking, no pun intended, it's an unfortunate thing. And that's one reason why social connotations to words matter. Also one reason some language translations are funny as hell and why some words can't be translated, or have to be translated into paragraphs with the addendum "we think we got this, but if not, our bad!" Most people who're familiar with more than one language recognize the action of what happens when most of a people have a connotation for specific words. I mean, my social graces tend toward the below-par, half of it language wise due to connotations of words. Words you wouldn't normally say have connotations, turns out the damn things are loaded. If I can recognize languages morphology and usually not get too pissy about it then so can the rest of you schlubs. N'I mean schlubs in the most affectionate manner possible.

*theres a very amusing short bit of poem speaking on the concept of learned things and subconscious, I'll try and dig it up.

 

[frankfrank]

^ Good example: Try thinking of all the words which refer to something that is really, really good.

Wonderful, terrific, marvelous, awesome, great, phenomenal, incredible, sensational, fantastic, fabulous, tremendous...ARE ALL WORDS WHICH ORIGINALLY MEANT SOMETHING ELSE.

Terrific used to mean something like "capable of evoking terror."

Superb, and maybe excellent and outstanding are among the very few words that didn't mean something else.

Now I'm actually somewhat confused on what the "exact" intended meaning of BIGOT is...I've always thought of it as a sort of "umbrella word" which covers more territory than "racist" which I've always thought to be included as one of the meanings of the word. Both words though, in my mind, are limited to feelings about PEOPLE.

I don't think that somebody can be "bigoted" against tabby cats, cockroaches, Yorkshire terriers, or pigeons.

 

[kallipolis]

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...likely-to-have-guns-or-drugs-than-minorities/

It is enlightening when actual statistics are cited, and facts revealed that shed more light on police stop, and frisk policies.

I quote:

White People Stopped By New York Police Are More Likely To Have Guns Or Drugs Than Minorities

White New Yorkers make up a small minority of stop-and-frisks, which were 84 percent black and Latino residents. Despite this much higher number of minorities deemed suspicious by police, the likelihood that stopping an African American would find a weapon was half the likelihood of finding one on a white person.