Talk:Bigotry

	This Social justice related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

(create an archive)

Do you really think the template belongs here?

Do you really think the template belongs here? I liked a see also link, what I was looking for was a "root" article in the discrimlaw series, but there isn't one. Maybe there's a cat... the template is just huge on this stubby page. Maybe the solution is to have more text, of course... human^{be in} 16:18, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

Definition

The definition definitely needs to be changed to something that isn't just a term people use to describe racists. Bigotry means exactly what the dictionaries say, and not what word-of-mouth says. Unless someone can put forth a convincing argument why our (uncited) definition is better than one from Encarta dictionary then I might just revert it back to the previous (all-inclusive) definition.Several ingredients (talk) 05:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is a list of all the people that will care if you revert back to your version:

Looks like no one will stop you. - π 05:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Unjustified Prejudice

If "Bigotry is an unjustified prejudice...", then is there such a thing as "justified prejudice"? If so, any example would that be? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 06:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

This is actually a good point, in the sense that there are several studies finding that most stereotypes hold water (if not any I can think to the work by Lee Jussim). And many grifters (including sometimes the very author) try to reframe this as "prejudices are confirmed".
Problem is that "a tendency existing" (I don't know, like "women are more likely to be caregivers") is just that, a slightly different assigned probability of a variable for a whole ass demographical group. It's not really a judgement on any single one person, which despite all the odds should still get a fair chance to present their character (e.g. no "she's a woman, therefore she must love nursing" shit).
I suppose you could also then distinguish a further and even worse category of prejudices "completely pulled out of one's ass without the slightest shred of an actual pattern" (e.g. "women are less intelligent"), but IMHO the adjective unjustified is still kinda redundant in either case. In a stretch of charity it could still be applied to the stereotypes themselves perhaps, but then a normal person would just say they are wrong.. no overly high-sounding words. --Mirh (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Russell has pointed out that Kant's distinction between "Pure" and "Practical" reason, was due to the difficulties that resulted from Hume's Treatise of Human Nature. Kant wanted to believe in causality, God, immortality, and all that. According to Russell "Pure" reason was simply reason, while "practical" reason was prejudice. Ariel31459 (talk) 22:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Removed section

The following section was removed from this article by the user Reverend Black Percy (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User:Reverend_Black_Percy) on 27 November 2016 because it "doesn't appear useful". So I'll put it here instead:

Misuse of the term

Recently, the word bigot has been notoriously misused towards statements that are not, or not necessarily, bigoted. Due to frequent misuse, this has the potential to lead to a Boy Who Cried Wolf situation. Once many people notice how often the word is used inappropriately, they will start to dismiss any accusation of bigotry, even when it is completely accurate. Here are two statements that are likely to be described as bigoted:

Example A: "Personally, I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman."

Example B: "Anyone who believes gays should be allowed to get married is an idiot."

Example A is not a bigoted statement because it is not close-minded. It is possible for the person who said Example A to be a bigot (since a person could say both Example A and B), but the statement by itself is not an instance of bigotry. Many politicians, for example Hillary Clinton, have held the position in Example A at one point in their life and have changed their opinion over time. This demonstrates that a person who says Example A can be open-minded. Example B is bigoted because it suggests anyone who disagrees with the statement is an idiot. This indicates intolerance, close-mindedness, and shows a lack of interest in debating those with opposing views. ^{— Unsigned, by: CowHouse / talk / contribs}

I second this. RationalWiki likes to talk about how terms have been hijacked by reactionaries to mean something other than than it's supposed to. [SJW, Politically Correct,etc] I see 'bigot' in similair fashion. It's deployed as a snarl world to dismiss criticism of anti-SJWs, not sure what's wrong or untrue with pointing that out, now that I can't edit the page anymore. Iamapartofman (talk) 14:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't doubt this is a thing, but.. duh, of course it has happened?
Like in "ever at all in all the centuries of the world"? Even before considering the stress and the bullying that some people receive, I can totally imagine even many well-intentioned dudes having unjustly snapped at somebody at least once in their lifetime.
But is this actually a Serious™ Widespread© Problem®, as opposed to just wanting to bothside the situation thanks to the cherry-picking of a few twitter eggs?
You are right that example A isn't necessarily bigoted (just like the example "I'm not comfortable with trans people in my same bathroom"), but this is because they have plenty of totally legitimate innocent/inoffensive/unassuming possible connotations. If certain actions were to follow (meaning it wasn't just an ingenuous statement for the records) that changes.
Angela Merkel was eventually a little bigot inside when she voted against gay marriage, after uttering basically the same words - but nobody really minded because she was obviously well aware where the parliament majority was after conceding free vote to her party members. But if somebody with the official record of a republican said the same, the context would be completely different (in fact, it could even be argued they are worse than example B given the almost certain dog whistle behind).
And trying to muddle that up, or denying the existence of the past even being a thing seem the whole bigot platform as of lately (from trump outraged about normal newspapers "unfairly" picking up on his waterfall of lies, to musk whining about the FTC having "biasedly" sent twitter almost as many complaints under his short tenure than during the entire remaining existence of the website).
Like, they could be literally slapping you right now, and still pretend that any negative effect on their reputation would be prejudicial (because punches are well-known not to matter, and if they can they never happened, or if it did happen it's not like skin crushing is bad, or if we even concede pain is noxious.. wise men ought not to hold grudges anyway).
In a way, I guess this isn't too far from the balance fallacy. But in another, to me it seems like the most hardcore philosophical skepticism (or outright nihilism?), except it's applied hyper selectively only to whatever the inconvenient fact of the argument is.
p.s. certainly you could use a better, uh, complaining source than the freaking latter-day saints magazine? --Mirh (talk) 01:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Liberals' tolerance and prejudice

This Politico article has some problems with the balance fallacy, but raises several interesting points about prejudice:

• Conservatives, liberals, the religious and the nonreligious are about equally prejudiced against those with opposing views.
• Conservatives and liberals exhibit coldness toward different groups. They tend to be prejudiced against groups perceived to hold opposing political views (e.g. conservatives are prejudiced against lower-class people, while liberals are prejudiced against the upper class). The social status of the group and whether membership of the group is chosen matters little.
• Open-minded people are colder towards "conventional" groups such as evangelical Christians, Republicans and those the article euphemistically calls "supporters of the traditional family". Unsurprisingly, close-minded people are prejudiced against "unconventional" groups such as atheists. (This seems logical to me - the open-minded are not tolerant of conventional groups that want to oppress unconventional groups.)
• Intelligence is correlated with support of "newer lifestyles", as opposed to "traditional family ties".
• According to a frightening presentation, education does not reduce prejudice - it just teaches the prejudiced how and when to hide it.
• The article claims that e.g. racists are afraid of sharing their true feelings due to political correctness. Would we be better off if racists were free to spew racist garbage with no fear of consequences (other than facing counterarguments)? Blatant racism obviously hurts the targets of said racism, and it could lead to the spread of such views - or it could lead to such views being countered.
• Prejudice on both sides was "largely driven by seeing the opposing groups as limiting one's personal freedom". The people maligned by liberals tend to hold more power in society than the people maligned by conservatives. Nevertheless, many conservatives also see themselves as victims. There are several questions to be addressed: How many legitimate grievances do the respective sides have? How much of the complaining is merely the result of a persecution complex? How do we address persecution complex-related prejudice? The only suggested solution is "talk to the other side and work toward a goal", which sounds too idealistic, and could be a recipe for meeting bigots halfway.

ThineAntidote (talk) 14:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

It's kinda eerie to see a journalist starting an ostensibly "totally serious" piece, with concerns about none the less than the fucking king of provocateurs (let alone by quoting events that happened less than a week after one of his supporters literally shot a protester).
And a supposedly professional competent psychologist completely and dumbly unaware of the paradox of tolerance. No, "both sides claim the same thing" is not an actual argument for anything:

• No, for as much as the subjective belief of people is insightful and outright essential to a complete understanding, there has to be a point where you stop and look at what the actual facts are.
• Even if you are bending over backwards to keep "the science" as much value-free as physically possible, group rights are objective. It's otherwise bullshit cultural relativism to put every single grievance on the same level.
• No, you can't just "compare numerically" the amount of prejudiced categories you got on each side (let alone when they are so pathetically detached from ordinary parlance, both in quantity and quality).
• Disliking goths and nerds is the same thing of disliking mormons or minarchists? And disliking blacks and buddhists(??) is the same thing of disliking men or the police in the country with the worst brutality record of the first world?
• There are certainly loads of toxic atheists. But if we are in a context where that's in opposition to "fundamentalists" then we aren't talking about edgy teens or insufferable neckbeards, but basically just secularism.
• Conversely, for as much as "supporting the traditional family" is already as big of an euphemism as you can get, it completely ceases to have any harmless meaning when feminism is supposed to be its challenger
• And don't get me started with the doltish preferential framing treatment, as if the tea party specifically was the same of leftism as in "just liberal" (a connotation that isn't just in the minds of some conservatives, but is explicitly made by the researchers)

To quote a wise redditor: so yeah, we see that the left is just as capable of opposing differing views as the right, but you can't say anything meaningful about "intolerance" without getting into the who and why, which is exactly where this piece falls flat.
Yet other "both sides" crap. --Mirh (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I believe we all are bigots in some way.

We just don't realize it. I at least admit that I am a racist. 2003:C3:3741:1600:2414:3FE5:4FE:2EB0 (talk) 01:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Good for you - just don't bring your racism here. Ace^Moderator 01:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I think we all have biases. What matters is whether we are able to recognize our biases and whether we act on them--"Shut up, Brx." 02:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

there has been an ip shitposting takes all over talk pages. please don't feed. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 04:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Why, what's there to lose? Has he been vandalizing?--"Shut up, Brx." 14:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

There was this. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Your point? If someone says "I'm just here to start shit" should I then proceed to say "very well, carry on!"? Nay, I should tell them to fuck off and be done with it. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

The point is to give context of the situation in response to brxbrx’s question. To that, I would add that saying you’re a troll does not actually make you one; and that faced with such a declaration, you should carry on until trolling or some sort of vandalism actually occurs. Rather than deleting talk page comments and banning, which is, after all, rather different from just telling someone to fuck off. And for further context, it looks like Oxyaena added another ban. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 06:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, we all might have internal unconscious biases that we may not be aware of, but it's in our own free will and agency in our actions and beliefs in general. Rational Dude (talk) 01:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)