yahoo on bigotry

Apr 16 07:26 UTC 2002

Is bigotry the same as ignorance?


*       Bigotry can be nourished by knowledge of the facts (in combination with
certain irrational psychobiological factors, including low self-esteem and
obsessive edenism), as well as blissful ignorance. Hitler was more
knowlegeable about Jews than the vast majority of Jews then or now; the
ignorant hick from Tennessee who thinks Jews have horns and blacks make good
slaves believes what he does because he has been taught so by his friends and
relatives, or may have even read such in books (which never lie). The latter
may or may not be characterized by festering hatred, but is troublesome
nonetheless. The difference between the two is that the former may be helped
only by intensive counseling in combination with medicinal or perhaps even
surgical intervention. The latter group is not necessarily psychologically
dependant on those views and may be influenced by education (yes, like this
site... :). 




Who is to blame for bigotry? Where does bigotry come from?


*       The issue of culpability (blame) is tricky; ultimately, if we are
influenced by some combination of nature and nurture, both of which are forces
out of our control*, then where lies personal choice? In order to avoid such
philosophical discussions for the sake of pragmatism we must pursue the issue
of culpability as a constructive environmental (nurture) influence on human
behaviour, and not simply a judgement. Therefore, the ignorant but rational
bigot is still a bigot (one hopes that the label will be a motivating factor),
just as the drunk driver is still a murderer. Threfore, we at Yahoodi choose
not to spare feelings when we hear ignorant arguments that, if put into
policy, would perhaps lead to genocide. A bigot is a bigot. But fear not,
there is salvation through rational pursuit of the facts. 

The irrational bigot is another matter entirely, although there is certainly
a range of beliefs. The causes for such bigotry are complicated, but there
are a few related and relevant concepts that we discuss on this site: The
Stockholm Syndrome, Galut or Dhimmi Mentality, Universalism, and Ethical
Relativism. These attitudes are irrational, psychologically addictive, and
usually have origins in trauma. Except for the Stockholm Syndrome (and only
when it's origins are obvious), no attempt is generally made at treatment,
even if such symptoms are recognized, because they are seen as "personal
choice" or at least within the range of normal human psychology. But to ignore
the existential threats posed by such psychology is to aid it's logical
outcome. 




Is bigotry the same as hatred?


*       Bigotry targets groups that are not generally based on "choice" (let's
call them "biogroups"). Such biogroups include ethnic groups (the term
replacing the innacurate and obsolete term "race"), the two genders, sexual
orientation (the current scientific research suggests this is biologically
determined), and disability. Bigotry is NOT the hatred of ideas, including
the hatred of individuals that support certain ideas, especially when those
ideas are the basis (or rationalization) of actual bigotry. Non-bigoted hatred
is targeted at philosophies like Marxism and Capitalism. Care must be taken
to differentiate between ideas, and the biogroups that in large part support
those ideas. Hatred of civil, gay or women's rights, laws to protect children
and the disabled, or safe-havens promoted by Zionism, the Armenian and Kurdish
national movements, are often simply masquerades for the hatred of the
biogroups for whom such ideas are intended as protection from centuries or
even millenia of persecution (of which such masquerades are only the most
recent manifestation). 




 

 

 

response 2 of 47:

Apr 16 12:19 UTC 2002

Current scientific research does *not* suggest that sexual orientation 
is biologically determined; it's a political farce.  Those claims do 
not have solid grounding in fact, and studies relating to such are 
inconclusive.  At best, there may be some genetic factors that may be 
triggered by environmental stresses.

However, psychological studies of prejudice certainly merit reflection 
and note.  Psychology Today ran an article a few years ago that 
suggested that we all have prejudices, although many of us seek to 
keep them private.  They do influence our social interaction and 
outlook.

From my own perspective, that seems to make sense.

Prejudice may be influenced by the familiar: if we use the category 
of 'racial' minority, then I can say I'm reasonably comfortable around 
Hispanic/Latino people.  I speak Spanish and I have had a lot of 
exposure to local culture.  I am less comfortable around African-
Americans, however; I have had much less interaction with such people, 
and I doubt many media images would necessarily apply to those I do 
see around me.  

response 4 of 47:

Apr 16 15:19 UTC 2002

Only a queer can call a homo a homo. Are you coming out of the closet,
happyboy?
 
I agree with Jack that the concept that sexual orientation is more than weakly
tied to genetics and prenatal experiences is a political farce ungrounded in
medical studies. I disagree with Jack on his position about homosexuality,
but since he only applies his opinion to himself, I have no problem with him.

response 6 of 47:

Apr 16 16:10 UTC 2002

There is a study (undergraduate) of the issue of genetic control of
sexual orientation at http://hamp.hampshire.edu/~kebF92/genetics.html
Seems to have no axe to grind and concludes that studies are not
conclusive either way.

response 8 of 47:

Apr 16 17:50 UTC 2002

#7> Which finger? I've been out of the closet for years.

response 10 of 47:

Apr 16 18:29 UTC 2002

um, because this is the bigotry item and you're being a bigot?
 
don't flatter yourself by looking for other reasons. I don't mind fucking
assholes, but I prefer that there be a thinking person attached to them.

response 12 of 47:

Apr 16 20:15 UTC 2002

You're right. White people calling blacks "niggers" aren't bigots (which is
the same thing that you did).

response 14 of 47:

Apr 16 22:07 UTC 2002

"homo" isn't quite as strong as "nigger," it's more like "boy" or "spook."
 
"Gay" and "queer" are the most widely used, and accepted, terms. "Homo" is
usually considered "in-group only," like "fag" and "queen" and "nancy."

"Homosexual" is also acceptable, although it appears to have fallen out of
favor. Since many Lesbians don't seem to like "gay," or don't feel it applies
to them, "queer" is probably the most widely applicable, if you insist on a
single word. That covers homosexual men, Lesbians, bisexuals of both genders,
transgenders, and (in some circles) fetishists, polyamorists, and/or BDSMers
(in other words, the entire "alternative" sexuality spectrum, everything
that's not straight [non-gay], straight [non-BDSM], and straight
[non-fetishist]). I prefer to only use "queer" for GLBT, though.
 
I written text, GLBT is *the* most preferred, but it's clunky to say.
 
Thanks for asking. =}

response 16 of 47:

Apr 16 22:48 UTC 2002

How queer.....

response 18 of 47:

Apr 16 23:33 UTC 2002

hahahahahahahaha! it's yahoo's corporate PRO-ISRAEL explanation of bigotry.
i left out the last bit which explains their "view" partly yo focus on bigotry
and partly so you PRO-LOGIC people could talk about it w/out it becoming lk
et al's personal soapbox. 

i hate when people say 'only a homo can call a homo a homo, and only a black
person can call a black person a nigger, etc. 

response 20 of 47:

Apr 17 00:18 UTC 2002

I think "yahoodi" is cute, though.  At least they're not Zionist 
yahooligans.

response 22 of 47:

Apr 17 01:59 UTC 2002

re20:  HAW!!

response 24 of 47:

Apr 17 04:17 UTC 2002

Hmm . . . I'm bi and I don't want to be "cured".  Sexual orientation 
isn't a disease - sexual orientation based bigotry is.