The Signs of Bigotry (POV, charity)

[tomspug]

No, I totally agree. It's intimidating. In fact, I assure you that there are plenty of people right now reading these posts who haven't joined yet. (Do it!)

Usually, the bigots are only here for a couple of weeks, because they are successfully tuckered out by all of the contrariness they find from our ever-vigilant anti-prostelytizers. What I'm talking about usually comes up in the more divisive issues, usually when one side holds the belief that the other side has no valid argument and are 100% wrong and in ignorance. Of course, the reality is always that this is never true. And everyone does it, even myself. But I felt it was necessary to bring this up, because the more we make ourselves aware of it, the less likely it is allowed to happen.

There was this other videogame forum I was on a year back, and there was this big controversy over a journalist getting fired by his company. And I had the nerve to defend the company that fired him. Not that I had decided to side with the company, but I simply brought up some ideas that seemed plausible, because the discussion, to me, seemed incredibly one-sided. Naturally, I was made out to be some sort of bigot for even bringing it up. It's one of the most frustrating situations in the world to be made into a bigot for trying to broaden a discussion, I'll tell you (and it's happened here who knows how many times).

Anyways, there was one forum member who chose to defend me, not what I was saying, just me. He recognized that the conclusions that people were drawing about what I was saying were not true and that I was basically getting trampled on for impartially defending the possibility that they were wrong. And I'll tell you, that guy had my respect forever, just for that one post.

[Charity]

Have you ever noticed in a dog fight if one dog goes down even his own pack will turn their attack on him.....Sounds familiar doesn't it? We just got to remember that every dog has his day sooner or later.... It's a dog's life....scratch me behind my ears and I'll follow you anywhere

[The Voice of Reason]

I understand the point that you are making, Tom, and I'm fairly certain that I am one of the members that you are referring to.

I believe that most people join this site for the joy of exchanging ideas and positions on subjects with other people that are well informed, and well spoken.

You mentioned the people that join for the sake of proseltyizing, (which is against the rules of the forum). Those people usually last about 10 days or so, before they finally realize that that type of behaviour will not be tolerated. At least, it will not be tolerated in the "debate" forums. Personally, I have no problem with it within the single faith forums, but then again, I never venture into them.

I think the formation of "cliques" is a natural result of shared values and common stances on issues. As an example, I find myself in agreement with Doppleganger, Sunstone, Alceste, and a handful of others on 95% of the issues.

When two people disagree about a given issue, they should both be able to defend their position, and if they cannot, they should be willing to question why they hold the opinions that they do. Likewise, if a person does a good job of defending his position, one should be willing to concede that a good defense has been presented, and at the very least, the two parties should agree to disagree. A case in point would be that Doppleganger and myself disagree on the subject of the Death Penalty. He and I have exchanged our points of view, and we have both explained why we feel the way we do. We both respect the others position because both of us have demonstrated a solid defense of our positions.

On the other hand, when debating an issue with someone that can offer no defense of their position, or repeatedly relies on items that have been shown to be false, and still refuses to examine why they hold that position, then that person quickly loses the respect that is initially afforded to all.

If an individual repeatedly cannot defend their positions on multiple issues and refuses to question themselves when they have been shown the fallacies of their arguments, then at some point, they sacrifice the right to expect to be taken seriously. When that happens, they feel they are being dismissed out of hand. And they are.

[YmirGF]

Originally Posted by tomspug

One thing I have noticed on this forum is how people form "cliques" for want of a better word.

Well, then again, Tom, that much is inevitable. I don't know if that is necessarily a bad thing, per se. Birds of a feather does come to mind.

Originally Posted by tomspug

What is even worse is when people group those that they don't agree with into their own imaginary "enemy clique".

I have noticed that on RF, although I don't consider any group on RF to be my personal enemy, I am rather sure that a lot of members would hotly question that assertion. Since joining RF, I have taken to saying "Oy vey!" quite a bit.

Originally Posted by tomspug

It makes discussion and debate unnecessary, because it conveniently degrades any complex subject into a matter of "right vs. wrong". Is this not the true sign of bigotry that so many of us despise?

To be fair, I'd have to say that this is topic specific, Tom. I think what you might be saying here is that many discussions on RF don't have a clearly defined factual answer and yet folks will blather on and on until the cows come home over what are essentially imaginary points. I know it makes me go cross-eyed sometimes.

Originally Posted by tomspug

How strong can your arguments really be, when they are reliant on the affirmation of others?

I know I NEVER rely on the support of others to make my points. If folks agree with me, then that is all well and good. If they don't agree, that is just dandy too. The point is when I make mistakes, I am not afraid to admit it.

Originally Posted by tomspug

If your argument is actually a good one, the debate would be able to stand on its own, without the need to 1) degrade the opponent or 2) require backup support from "the pack".

Yes, that is true. I think I first really noticed hysterical ranting in the Climate change threads. Woe betide the hide of anyone who disagrees with the proponents of Climate change became clearly VERY quickly. We are currently seeing the same things in the Political threads. It's as if those who do not support Saint Obama are somehow morally flawed. You are right, it doens't leave much to talk about.

Originally Posted by tomspug

And another great indicator of bigotry and a lack of logic is the ever-popular questioning of moral character or intelligence. Nothing says "I've got no response to what you just said" like implying that your ideas are irrelevant or misdirecting your views as being sourced from an immoral pursuit.

I do agree. I know that if I so desired I could tear some rather larger new holes for some people here, but frankly, what is the point. You only alienate people that way, but otoh, if they are already alienated by your thinking... LOL.

Originally Posted by tomspug

The more elusive yet completely obvious sign of bigotry is the attempt to ignore the individual. Instead of treating your opponent like an individual person, with a brain, you lump him/her into a category or group of people, often reciting a list of people that you would like to associate that person with.

I'm not so sure that that is not fair, Tom. If someone reflects a given well known viewpoint there is the 'guilt by association' thingy, as it were. I think where this runs afoul is when a very general swipe of the brush is used where it isn't warranted.

Originally Posted by tomspug

Ironically, we pretend to look down on such techniques, implemented often by our favorite president, George Bush: how is lumping individual people into convenient groups of ignorance any different from lumping together Iraq and Afghanistan? How is disregarding someone's argument as being immoral or unintelligent any different from calling everyone that opposes you "terrorists" or "unAmerican"?

That is a pretty massive generality, Tom.
I'm not even sure where to begin to discuss this aspect of what you are saying.

Originally Posted by tomspug

Is it really so easy to see bigotry in others but so difficult to see bigotry in ourselves?

True, Tom, but surely this isn't a revelation, is it? This has been, is currently and always will be true. Someone long ago was reported to have said, "He who is without sin..."

[tomspug]

Originally Posted by The Voice of Reason

I understand the point that you are making, Tom, and I'm fairly certain that I am one of the members that you are referring to.

I believe that most people join this site for the joy of exchanging ideas and positions on subjects with other people that are well informed, and well spoken.

You mentioned the people that join for the sake of proseltyizing, (which is against the rules of the forum). Those people usually last about 10 days or so, before they finally realize that that type of behaviour will not be tolerated. At least, it will not be tolerated in the "debate" forums. Personally, I have no problem with it within the single faith forums, but then again, I never venture into them.

I think the formation of "cliques" is a natural result of shared values and common stances on issues. As an example, I find myself in agreement with Doppleganger, Sunstone, Alceste, and a handful of others on 95% of the issues.

When two people disagree about a given issue, they should both be able to defend their position, and if they cannot, they should be willing to question why they hold the opinions that they do. Likewise, if a person does a good job of defending his position, one should be willing to concede that a good defense has been presented, and at the very least, the two parties should agree to disagree. A case in point would be that Doppleganger and myself disagree on the subject of the Death Penalty. He and I have exchanged our points of view, and we have both explained why we feel the way we do. We both respect the others position because both of us have demonstrated a solid defense of our positions.

On the other hand, when debating an issue with someone that can offer no defense of their position, or repeatedly relies on items that have been shown to be false, and still refuses to examine why they hold that position, then that person quickly loses the respect that is initially afforded to all.

If an individual repeatedly cannot defend their positions on multiple issues and refuses to question themselves when they have been shown the fallacies of their arguments, then at some point, they sacrifice the right to expect to be taken seriously. When that happens, they feel they are being dismissed out of hand. And they are.

It is not my intent to refer to any particular individual. I would certainly say that I can include myself as fitting the descriptions referred to in the OP, at times. What I am attempting to do is not to DEFINE the character of an individual, but to recognize the qualities of an unfair and one-sided argument.

I don't care who is right. If an argument is one-sided, everyone loses. This is how I will always feel, and this is why I will inevitably always get caught in the middle of arguments where this kind of stuff happens. It's just my personality. I hope this doesn't give people the impression that I have a tendency to be bigoted. I just like debates to be enjoyable for everyone.

In regards to your points, I find the idea that ANYONE can agree with ANYONE 95% of the time absurd. I know for a fact that you, Sunstone, doppelganger, and Alceste are very different in views on religion as well as politics. Of course, you may consider yourselves to be like-minded in an election, when there are only two sides to choose, but your political views, are FAR from the same, my friend, and I guarantee you that the reasons you have chosen a side are equally diverse.

Cliques, in my opinion, tend to interrupt discussion, because they often don't bring anything new to the table. Of course, it is helpful for people to uplift and agree with arguments they choose as the stronger, but how is it helpful when arguments get sidetracked, ignored, or even stopped altogether? Like-mindedness isn't the cause of these problems. It's the way that people REACT to like-mindedness that ruins a debate.

I have exchanged our points of view, and we have both explained why we feel the way we do. We both respect the others position because both of us have demonstrated a solid defense of our positions.

An excellent example of the perfect debate. Your implication is that the only reason a conclusion like this is reached is if one side does NOT have a strong defense, which is often true. Unfortunately, it is only one of many scenarios that occurs.

For example, say that an atheist joins a Christian-only forum and creates a simple question regarding the historicity of Christ. He has yet to share his own views. He is first of all interested in polling the opinions of others, because he is not confident in his own views. That forum promptly begins to attack that individual and make judgments about him for even raising the question, for who knows what reasons. Hurt intellectually and emotionally, the poster either leaves immediately, responds negatively, or does his best to futilly defend his character to uncaring ears. There was no chance from the beginning for the "perfect" debate to ever happen.

Another example would be if a poster DOES make a valid argument and well-thought out post, but the post is picked apart sentence by sentence. Usually, what I see happen is that people outright ignore the meat and potatoes of an argument and focus on the weakest points, as if a demonstration in weakness automatically disqualifies any merit that person might have.

And I don't even want to talk about politics. There is so much untruth on both sides, that there is no safe place to talk about it anymore. But that's a conversation for another day (more like, months ago when I posted a thread about it).

The point of this thread is not to demean anyone, but to remember WHY we are here. We are not here to prove people wrong. We are here to grow, as individuals. We will enjoy the forums more if we delight not only in our own experience, but the experience of others as well. I find that it is not only important to understand the position of others on issues, it is also important to discover the values and interests of that person. Because, really, without that knowledge, how can we REALLY understand why certain people believe and think the way they do? If we are driving people away from the forum, we should think about why that is. Understanding is ALWAYS the key to a great conversation, our own understanding, not others.

I have great respect for the love and understanding of the people on this forum, and I'm sure that we can all agree on that.

[tomspug]

Originally Posted by YmirGF

Yes, that is true. I think I first really noticed hysterical ranting in the Climate change threads. Woe betide the hide of anyone who disagrees with the proponents of Climate change became clearly VERY quickly. We are currently seeing the same things in the Political threads. It's as if those who do not support Saint Obama are somehow morally flawed. You are right, it doens't leave much to talk about.

Whenever anything becomes political, it stops being about the issues. There was this great episode of South Park on last night where the kids were losing in ratings to "Wide Camera Angles with Cute Dogs", so they turned their legitimate news team into "Sexy Action News" where you might die if you miss the news and everything is exciting and dire. Whenever there is competition, truth and reality loses.

I'm not so sure that that is not fair, Tom. If someone reflects a given well known viewpoint there is the 'guilt by association' thingy, as it were. I think where this runs afoul is when a very general swipe of the brush is used where it isn't warranted.

See, this is the problem. Guilt by association IS bigotry. You are basically saying "this guy believes something I am CONVINCED is wrong, so I will not listen to him". Isn't this what people criticize the religious for doing when a view contrary to their faith is brought up? How is it any different? Every individual is different, and their are different and many times legitimate reasons for people holding views that are contrary to our own. There are legitimate reasons for wanting to use green energy. There are legitimate reasons for drilling for oil. The examples are endless. The POINT is that politicians and religious zealots tell us that there is a line in the sand, and that everyone on the other side of the line is wrong. Tell me how much intelligence it takes to believe that?

[The Voice of Reason]

Originally Posted by tomspug

We are not here to prove people wrong.

You use the universal "We", as if everyone has the exact same intent. That is simply not the case.

Personally, I am here to learn (as you have stated) about things of which I am ignorant, to teach where someone asks for input, and perhaps most importantly, to expose and repudiate conclusions reached by the use of faulty logic and irrational thought.

In reference to your statement (above) - I am not here to prove people wrong - but I am here to rebut misguided statements and shed the light of day on intolerance and bigotry - both of which rear their ugly heads on this site every day.

[tomspug]

Originally Posted by The Voice of Reason

You use the universal "We", as if everyone has the exact same intent. That is simply not the case.

Personally, I am here to learn (as you have stated) about things of which I am ignorant, to teach where someone asks for input, and perhaps most importantly, to expose and repudiate conclusions reached by the use of faulty logic and irrational thought.

In reference to your statement (above) - I am not here to prove people wrong - but I am here to rebut misguided statements and shed the light of day on intolerance and bigotry - both of which rear their ugly heads on this site every day.

Good on you, man. It's nice to know that there are people on the look-out for bigotry.

[Charity]

Originally Posted by The Voice of Reason

You use the universal "We", as if everyone has the exact same intent. That is simply not the case.

Personally, I am here to learn (as you have stated) about things of which I am ignorant, to teach where someone asks for input, and perhaps most importantly, to expose and repudiate conclusions reached by the use of faulty logic and irrational thought.

In reference to your statement (above) - I am not here to prove people wrong - but I am here to rebut misguided statements and shed the light of day on intolerance and bigotry - both of which rear their ugly heads on this site every day.

TVOR you know we don't always agree but I have always respected your pov. I don't mind being told I'm wrong by anyone, just show me the error in my way of thinking and be constructive in your criticism. Usually anytime you have disagreed you have done so in a kind and corrective way and I appreciate that. It doesn't mean someone is stupid just because they have been given the wrong facts on which they base their argument, just "enlighten" them ever so kindly...

[The Voice of Reason]

Originally Posted by tomspug

Good on you, man. It's nice to know that there are people on the look-out for bigotry.

There is an entire "clique" of us. Join us.