What is bigotry?

Jan 2010
4,439
Atlanta, Georgia USA
And yet you still didn't bother reading anything. Like that quote I provided. You either stopped reading after 11 words, or you purposely omitted the rest because it didn't fit your narrative. That paragraph didn't end with "tempt a penitent", it kept going for a massive sentence.

The 11 words you pasted:

"The crime of solicitation takes place when a priest tempts a penitent "

The whole thing including underlined that you omitted for whatever reason (hopefully not purposeful):

The crime of solicitation takes place when a priest tempts a penitent whoever that person is, either in the act of sacramental confession, whether before or immediately afterwards, whether on the occasion or the pretext of confession, whether even outside the times for confession in the confessional or [in the place] other than that [usually] designated for the purpose of hearing of confessions or [in a place] chosen for the simulated purpose of hearing a confession."

The wording makes it absolutely plain that it doesn't have to happen inside the actual confessional, or during. And that the crime is not about breaking secrecy of the confessional (that you think it does shows you didn't read the PDF).

And its pretty clear you read the Guardian article. You regurgitated the Vatican spokesman talking point. You definitely read enough to know where to open the PDF.

You are claiming to be a lawyer while, numerous times including an edit, seriously threatening someone online with a lawsuit over libel over someone claiming you did read an article you're claiming you didn't, or that you didn't read a PDF document that you said you did. You really want to advertise you're that bad at your profession. The judge would laugh you right out of a court. Rightfully. You weren't libeled, you were ridiculed because you made ridiculous comments. You should know the difference, if you are a lawyer.

And threatening an anonymous online poster with threat of lawsuits because you've debated yourself into a corner is childish to say the least. Frankly its insulting. I've ducked sniper fire. I've been blown up by IEDs. I've survived cancer. I've held my twin babies who were born so premature they fit in my palm. You really think you're scaring me?
And yet you still didn't bother reading anything. Like that quote I provided. You either stopped reading after 11 words, or you purposely omitted the rest because it didn't fit your narrative. That paragraph didn't end with "tempt a penitent", it kept going for a massive sentence.

The 11 words you pasted:

"The crime of solicitation takes place when a priest tempts a penitent "

The whole thing including underlined that you omitted for whatever reason (hopefully not purposeful):

The crime of solicitation takes place when a priest tempts a penitent whoever that person is, either in the act of sacramental confession, whether before or immediately afterwards, whether on the occasion or the pretext of confession, whether even outside the times for confession in the confessional or [in the place] other than that [usually] designated for the purpose of hearing of confessions or [in a place] chosen for the simulated purpose of hearing a confession."

The wording makes it absolutely plain that it doesn't have to happen inside the actual confessional, or during. And that the crime is not about breaking secrecy of the confessional (that you think it does shows you didn't read the PDF).

And its pretty clear you read the Guardian article. You regurgitated the Vatican spokesman talking point. You definitely read enough to know where to open the PDF.

You are claiming to be a lawyer while, numerous times including an edit, seriously threatening someone online with a lawsuit over libel over someone claiming you did read an article you're claiming you didn't, or that you didn't read a PDF document that you said you did. You really want to advertise you're that bad at your profession. The judge would laugh you right out of a court. Rightfully. You weren't libeled, you were ridiculed because you made ridiculous comments. You should know the difference, if you are a lawyer.

And threatening an anonymous online poster with threat of lawsuits because you've debated yourself into a corner is childish to say the least. Frankly its insulting. I've ducked sniper fire. I've been blown up by IEDs. I've survived cancer. I've held my twin babies who were born so premature they fit in my palm. You really think you're scaring me?
1. The crime is soliciting a penitent. The procedure—that is, the sealing of the proceedings—is in place to protect the secrecy of the confessional. I did look the article to find the link to the document but didn’t read the article itself. I guess you can’t accept that I could draw the same conclusion about the procedure as you tell me the spokespeople for the Church drew. But I did.

2. I didn’t threaten you with a lawsuit—it should have been clear to you from my revised comment that I’m facetious. Do you really think I’d sue you over whether or not I’d read the Guardian?
 
Likes: JoanOfArc007
Oct 2018
1,209
Adelaide south Australia
I'm finding it increasingly difficult to distinguish between at least one of our resident apologists and a common or garden variety troll.

Impossible to have a rational discussion with either. Doesn't matter, I don't feed either .
 
Feb 2013
4,313
Coastal Florida
Frankly speaking I have never been able to determine, with accuracy, what bigotry is. Simply because that term is extended in the common usage and usually with a negative meaning. So it's an easy political tool for communication propaganda. The accusation "you're a bigot!" works ... even if no one knows what a bigot is ...
I'm not sure about other languages but it's been defined in English dictionaries for over 400 years...and its definitions haven't radically changed over the course of time, except to become more abstract. While older dictionaries often provided senses in the form of more precise practical examples, modern definitions can encompass every historical example I've ever found (and I've searched explicitly for this term in many dictionaries spanning the last 4 centuries). Traditionally, it's been defined as a form of hypocrisy or some sort of irrational conclusion predicated upon an unfounded, unsound or incoherent foundation. For instance, prejudice is a baseless conclusion drawn without examination of relevant evidence and this has commonly been used as a semantic sense for bigotry in many dictionaries. As for it "usually" carrying a negative meaning, I disagree because any term can be used or understood in a negative fashion even when there is nothing inherently negative about it. While I think it's fair to say examples of the term often, perhaps even typically, place their objects of scorn in a negative light, the term bigotry itself merely describes ideation which exhibits certain characteristics and it's neither negative nor positive in that sense. Rather, it's merely a clinical assessment of ideation and products of ideation.

This is actually an area where the Lost Cause agenda has scored a huge victory, in American society at least. A central tenet of this ideology is to justify bigotry by labeling it a mere conservative viewpoint. When Edward Pollard wrote about this 150 years ago, he was specifically referring to bigotry against black people. It appears to me he was explicitly trying to inculcate denial about what bigotry actually was so people could suspend logical reason when it came to it...and he was somewhat successful in doing this. While Pollard didn't invent this notion, I think the Lost Cause ideology is largely responsible for its continued existence as an assumed "fact" by large segments of our society. Many generations later (and after many civil rights movements involving other marginalized groups), this idea has become more abstract and millions of people have now been indoctrinated to believe the term bigotry represents a personal political attack when, in actuality, it's never been defined that way. I think this is also why it's commonly dismissed as a term used for mere social, religious or political disagreement. From the traditional semantic perspective as recorded by dictionaries, the fact of the matter is that an examination of social, religious or political slant is not necessary to determine whether a viewpoint meets the definition of bigotry as no definition exists which adds a caveat excluding views of particular ideologies (e.g. "[definition]...except when expressed as a slanted political viewpoint"). It's also not necessary to examine whether people agree with one another.

It's true that one might call someone else a bigot and this is not a good way to handle the topic. However, while this may be ad hominem in every case, it's not necessarily a logical fallacy (if one expresses views which actually meet the definition of bigotry). Although, in my experience, it's often the case someone falsely claims they've been called a bigot merely because someone points out their expressions meet the definition of bigotry. That's not the same thing. If it was, we wouldn't be able to communicate at all because we'd constantly be accused of calling each other names if we characterized products of ideation of any kind. Can you imagine the person who fixed your teeth getting offended that you called him a dentist when you merely said something about his dentistry? Suppose you start painting on canvas and someone comments on your artistry. Are you then going to complain that they called you an artist? How about if you utter words at a lectern with an audience present and someone characterizes your words as speech. Will you demand they stop calling you a speaker? Somehow, I doubt it, as you can logically apply the same principle to any product of ideation and claim to have been personally attacked.
 
Last edited:

Linschoten

Ad Honoris
Aug 2010
16,205
Welsh Marches
'Bigot' is actually an inherently pejorative term, unless you don't mind being described as someone who holds very strong views on on wholly inadequate grounds and hates anyone who disagrees with you; it implies both self-satisfied ignorance and spite. There are, of course, plenty of people who fit that description, but it is very often applied without proper justification as is so often the case with pejorative terms, so that is the person who is making the accusation who is then the bigot. It is also very common to see bigots attacking other bigots as bigots, out of bigotry without thinking for a moment that they might be suffering from the same fault; this comes about particualrly in strongly polarized communities.
 
Last edited:
Jun 2016
1,855
England, 200 yards from Wales
'Bigot' is actually an inherently pejorative term, unless you don't mind being described as someone who holds very strong views on on wholly inadequate grounds and hates anyone who disagrees with you; it implies both self-satisfied ignorance and spite. There are, of course, plenty of people who fit that description, but it is very often applied without proper justification as is so often the case with pejorative terms, so that is the person who is making the accusation who is then the bigot. It is also very common to see bigots attacking other bigots as bigots, out of bigotry without thinking for a moment that they might be suffering from the same fault; this comes about particualrly in strongly polarized communities.
I think that's an important element in the usage of the word - not just holding views prejudicial to others on inadequate grounds (or none at all), but also the hostile attitude to those others, and anyone else who thinks differently. As you say - ignorance and spite combined.
Of course it is often (mis-)used to mean no more than someone with strong views that the speaker doesn't like.
 
Feb 2013
4,313
Coastal Florida
'Bigot' is actually an inherently pejorative term, unless you don't mind being described as someone who holds very strong views on on wholly inadequate grounds and hates anyone who disagrees with you; it implies both self-satisfied ignorance and spite. There are, of course, plenty of people who fit that description, but it is very often applied without proper justification as is so often the case with pejorative terms, so that is the person who is making the accusation who is then the bigot. It is also very common to see bigots attacking other bigots as bigots, out of bigotry without thinking for a moment that they might be suffering from the same fault; this comes about particualrly in strongly polarized communities.
Any word can be said with a sneer and meant pejoratively but few of them are "inherently pejorative". Examples with senses which have generally been used that way are, in some fashion, usually designated as such by dictionaries. In the historical record, we even have dictionaries which explicitly sought to record terms generally used as pejoratives as well as other language considered impolite but, as far as I recall, no examples of this genre that I've examined recorded this term. If you know of a dictionary that generalizes this term as a pejorative, I'd be interested in seeing it. I suppose there's always an exception that proves the rule.
 
Last edited:

Linschoten

Ad Honoris
Aug 2010
16,205
Welsh Marches
I don't need to look in a dictionary to know that the word is inherently pejorative in normal British usage, unless there are some strange people who are happy to acknowledge that they hold strong views on no considered basis and are highly intolerant of those who think differently; it is certainly rude to call someone a bigot, and one cannot use the term without implying a criticism.
 

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
26,845
Italy, Lago Maggiore
I could consider this an attempt to allow the usage of a term which is very useful [as rhetorical tool] in a discussion:

the label "bigot", justified or not, generates a general prejudice about what the "bigot" says [or posts in a thread, since this is a forum]. Why to exert yourself? It's useless to try and understand the reason that a bigot presents to sustain an argument ... he's [or she's] a bigot ...

I prefer arguments and counterarguments to labels. Overall because even a real bigot can say something which makes sense ... but it's true the other way round as well.
 

Iraq Bruin

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
5,191
DC
I'm not sure about other languages but it's been defined in English dictionaries for over 400 years...and its definitions haven't radically changed over the course of time, except to become more abstract. While older dictionaries often provided senses in the form of more precise practical examples, modern definitions can encompass every historical example I've ever found (and I've searched explicitly for this term in many dictionaries spanning the last 4 centuries). Traditionally, it's been defined as a form of hypocrisy or some sort of irrational conclusion predicated upon an unfounded, unsound or incoherent foundation. For instance, prejudice is a baseless conclusion drawn without examination of relevant evidence and this has commonly been used as a semantic sense for bigotry in many dictionaries. As for it "usually" carrying a negative meaning, I disagree because any term can be used or understood in a negative fashion even when there is nothing inherently negative about it. While I think it's fair to say examples of the term often, perhaps even typically, place their objects of scorn in a negative light, the term bigotry itself merely describes ideation which exhibits certain characteristics and it's neither negative nor positive in that sense. Rather, it's merely a clinical assessment of ideation and products of ideation.

This is actually an area where the Lost Cause agenda has scored a huge victory, in American society at least. A central tenet of this ideology is to justify bigotry by labeling it a mere conservative viewpoint. When Edward Pollard wrote about this 150 years ago, he was specifically referring to bigotry against black people. It appears to me he was explicitly trying to inculcate denial about what bigotry actually was so people could suspend logical reason when it came to it...and he was somewhat successful in doing this. While Pollard didn't invent this notion, I think the Lost Cause ideology is largely responsible for its continued existence as an assumed "fact" by large segments of our society. Many generations later (and after many civil rights movements involving other marginalized groups), this idea has become more abstract and millions of people have now been indoctrinated to believe the term bigotry represents a personal political attack when, in actuality, it's never been defined that way. I think this is also why it's commonly dismissed as a term used for mere social, religious or political disagreement. From the traditional semantic perspective as recorded by dictionaries, the fact of the matter is that an examination of social, religious or political slant is not necessary to determine whether a viewpoint meets the definition of bigotry as no definition exists which adds a caveat excluding views of particular ideologies (e.g. "[definition]...except when expressed as a slanted political viewpoint"). It's also not necessary to examine whether people agree with one another.

It's true that one might call someone else a bigot and this is not a good way to handle the topic. However, while this may be ad hominem in every case, it's not necessarily a logical fallacy (if one expresses views which actually meet the definition of bigotry). Although, in my experience, it's often the case someone falsely claims they've been called a bigot merely because someone points out their expressions meet the definition of bigotry. That's not the same thing. If it was, we wouldn't be able to communicate at all because we'd constantly be accused of calling each other names if we characterized products of ideation of any kind. Can you imagine the person who fixed your teeth getting offended that you called him a dentist when you merely said something about his dentistry? Suppose you start painting on canvas and someone comments on your artistry. Are you then going to complain that they called you an artist? How about if you utter words at a lectern with an audience present and someone characterizes your words as speech. Will you demand they stop calling you a speaker? Somehow, I doubt it, as you can logically apply the same principle to any product of ideation and claim to have been personally attacked.
I do not get the Bold part, could you elaborate ?

it could change my question about the underlined part but "we are not communicating anymore" , my dictionary says "Bigot is a person intolerant of ideas different from their own" , that is how I read this definition to mean anyway.

Definition of BIGOT
 
Similiar History Discussions History Forum Date
Philosophy / Sociology

Similar History Discussions