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). 




 

 

 

47 responses total.

"The ignorant hick from Tennessee who thinks Jews have horns and blacks 
make good slaves" and the "friends and relatives" who've "taught [him] 
so," are all figments of the author's own bigotry.  Where did you find 
this bilge?

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.  

Cap'n Jack's gonne *cure* all the HOMOS!!!   8D

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.

Just because something is partly biologically determined doesn't mean
you have no control over it.

On the other hand, just because something isn't biologically determined
doesn't mean you *can* control it.

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.

re4:  sweety...you seem a bit quick to point that finger.

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

oops!  i was wondering why you were concerned about my *orientation*...

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.

where am i being a bigot?

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

i called you a nigger?


right...ok, what is the *preferred nomenclature*?

enlighten me.

"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. =}

  I wonder whether the term "GLBT" will survive the inevitable development
  of twelve-year-olds accusing each other of being "glibts" on the playground..

How queer.....

oh *boy*.

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. 

oh yea i forgot. this bilge came from:

http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/bigotry.html

yahoo should sue.

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

        Everyone that I know seems to have a concept of "us" and "them" in how
they deal with other people.  It makes evolutionary sense;  it's better to
share food with members of your own tribe than it is to share it with complete
strangers.  However, these days, the lines of "us" and "them" are't so clearly
delinated as the people we see every day, and we have some componet of choice
in who "us" and "them" are.

re20:  HAW!!

brighn *definitely* needs a twit filter.  Or he has way too much
time on his hands.

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

resp:18  hahaha!!

resp:24  "Cured"?  No, it's not a disease, and it's really a mistake 
to think of it that way.  It's a need, and the only dispute has been 
on the origins of it all.  What I *do* think is if some want to change 
(and I do), let them.  If others don't, let them.  But don't let 
anyone force their opinions.

Now the big problem I find with so-called "homophobes" is they feel 
it's perfectly within their right to disparage glbts et al, and anyone 
that would disagree is simply wrong or is not heterosexual.  That's 
not quite fair.  They say, "keep it private," but some have no problem 
gabbing and ogling on about the opposite sex.  That really needs to 
end.  I think some propriety and discretion from everyone should be 
encouraged.

#23> Too much time on my hands.
#18, para 2> Ingroup verbal markers are an important aspect of minority
bonding, especially when those markers are derogatory in the general public.
They serve the purpose of forming common bonds by reinforcing the existence
of the "enemy." Whether you like that or not, it's true, there are certain
words within most minority communities that can only be used by other members
of that community. Denying basic sociolinguistics won't modify its existence.
#23> See my last paragraph. Definitely too much time on my hands.

Browsing around yahoodi.com and following some links I came across a 
page that gives ethnic backgrounds of various famous people.  It's 
supposed to be representing multi-ethnic people, but it's cool gossip 
as well.  For example, I found out that Jennifer Tilly (and presumably 
her sister Meg) are one-fourth Chinese, as is Phoebe Cates; Prince is 
half Italian; Lenny Kravitz has a Russian Jewish father and a black 
mother, and his wife Lisa Bonet has a Russian Jewish mother and a black 
father; Mariah Carey is half African-Venezuelan and half Irish; Eddie 
Van Halen is half Indonesian and half Dutch; Lou Diamond Phillips is a 
tossed DNA salad consisting of Latino, Filipino, Cherokee, Chinese, 
Hawaiian and "Scots Irish," whatever that is; and Ben Kingsley, whom I 
referred to as "Indian" in another item, is half Indian and half 
Russian Jewish.

In other words, they are all Americans.

Yes, I like to think of Ben Kingsley as an American.

I'm sure he does too.

This response has been erased.

Neither.

your being diseased is independent of your opinions of Russ.

        Damn, Paul beat me to it.

        Bigotry isn't a disease because I can't catch it if I am forced to swim
in the nasty outpourings of your sneezings.  However, it is a mental disorder.

Scots-Irish = victims of the land clearances in Scotland, by which landlords
burnt down the houses of their tenants so they would leave the land and make
more room for sheep, when wool prices went up.  The Scots moved to Ireland.

Most of them moved to Northern Ireland, around Belfast.  Many of them kept
moving, to the southern US, and then across the continent to California.

don't forget canada and australia.

There seemed to be a lot of people of Scottish decent in Nova Scotia ;)

some of them even speak differenter then english!

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss