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... humanbe in 16:18, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
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)
When did bigot come to mean...
Anyone who disagrees with you? What you call xenophobia and Islamophobia is really patriotism, not bigotry. But that's to be expected from a site rrun by bat shit crazy SJW's. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
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)
- Gray, Thomas. "Why We Need To Stop Misusing 'Bigot'". https://www.theodysseyonline.com/stop-misusing-bigot.
- Duncan, William C.. "The Boy Who Cried Bigot". http://ldsmag.com/the-boy-who-cried-bigot/.
- Sherman, Amy. "Hillary Clinton’s changing position on same-sex marriage". http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/17/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-change-position-same-sex-marriage/.
Liberals' tolerance and 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.