Why is it fair to say Conservatives or Christians areBigots?

Post Reply New Topic

If one expresses views that make those working under them unable to work under them, they're hardly capable of being an effective executive, are they? He voluntarily resigned as Mozilla CEO due to this. Mozilla would be wrong to force him to resign (unless of course keeping him means risking losing more valuable employees), but that doesn't mean he's entitled to the position. If forced to act, Mozilla needs to do what's in their best interest; if he resigns before it reaches that point, he's free to so.



Many individuals form a group. When many individuals (all individually deserving of the label bigot) congregate in a group, there's nothing wrong with identifying that group as bigots collectively. This collective identification could be termed a stereotype, since we're all labelling them as the same; I'm not sure it's an unfair stereotype though... stereotyping those white Christian, conservative people building a wooden cross and dressed in pillowcases and bedsheets as racists is a fair stereotype... they're the Klan. (While it's unfair to stereotype white, conservative Christians as Klansmen, it is fair to stereotype Klanmen as white, Christian conservatives).



I don't disagree, it's far more effective to take a persuasive approach than to simply condemn or mock people for their views. That said, not everyone is open to persuasion, no amount of new information will cause them to reconsider how they see certain groups of other people. Since they're often not too interested in treating their opponents with dignity and respect, what makes them so entitled to receive it in reverse? When you treat people as subhuman you have to expect they may be less willing to recognize your own humanity.

The only thing that's really different is that now groups that used to be 'fair game' for treating as subhumans are starting to stand-up to bigots who targeted them, and those bigots aren't used to being the target. Forgive my lack of sympathy.

Holy wow that's good.

I found it kind of depressing. This is not the Stone Age. When will people stop identifying with a "tribe"?

"You're all individuals!" he proclaimed.
"I'm not!" a voice answered.

There are two alternatives: everyone identifying as solitary individuals, which is pretty horrifying when you consider how people treat out-groups, or everyone identifying as one big group, which seems totally impossible but should be the goal.

I'm optimistic that more and more people will broaden their tribe somewhat. Admittedly I base that on little more than increasingly seeing liberals (in the broader sense of the word) decry discrimination against conservatives.

Okay so people who judge people who don't believe in capital punishment or people who believe in abortions are bigots because they are usually intolerant towards others who believe in it and don't believe in capital punishment. This is why I said it's so ironic how they call others bigots when they are being one themselves and it's more common in religion and politics. I find it sad how some people let politics get in the way of their relationship with people and they just sometimes stop talking to someone when they believe in something they don't believe in rather it's abortion or what president they like or if they agree with the war or not.

I am still baffled about that accusation I got back in September but I think she may have misused the word or she misunderstood me because I never said anything bad about a group of people. I only talked about my aunt and my cousin and how their behaviors affect me and other people and I guess she could be someone who thinks just because they have a mental illness, I should put up with my aunt's abuse and I should toughen up around my cousin and not let myself get tense with her because of her over exaggerated emotions and her drama. By her logic my mom is a bigot for not wanting to talk to her sister and not letting her be mean to her. But you know what, she did me a big favor then by not wanting to talk to me anymore because would I really want to be friends with someone or have anything to do with someone who has this belief?

Yeah, I was pretty impressed too, this guy on my Facebook keeps pushing this blog at me, and when I finally sat down and read one, I kinda understood why he was so enthusiastic. I haven't read any of his stuff beyond that one piece, but to me that one is dead on. The Thatcher vs Osama part was particularly illustrative, and easily observed too.

I see it the opposite way.

Most bigots in the US tend to be conservative and Christian. That doesn't mean all conservatives/Christians are bigots, because that is very far from reality. Plenty are, but not even an overly large percentage of their numbers, IMO. I think a big part of the reason this perception still exists is because too many in the Republican leadership seem to have no problem with it. Even current Republican members in DC have no problem surrounding themselves with and taking large amounts of money from blatant bigots. Even the current majority whip (Scalise) had open ties to a white supremacist group as recently as 2002.

The thing is, the appearance of racism is actually beneficial from a campaign standpoint in certain districts in this country, which is helping to ensure bigotry ingrained within the national structure for yet another generation in some places.

This feels like a cop out, 'he resigned of his own volition, therefore you can't really say it was because of social pressure', kind of like justifying false convictions because the suspect confessed under duress. I mean, what you're saying is basically that an executive can't have any opinions at all, lest they potentially offend their employees and render themselves ineffective, and that doesn't sound right at all. Would your reaction be the same if the person in question had worked at, say, Chick-fil-A and resigned "voluntarily" after coming under fire for making comments similar to your own about Christians and having them publicized, thus alienating his subordinates? Remember, Eich never did anything that could be construed as discriminatory or homophobic, all he did was contribute to the "wrong" cause, and that got him drummed out of the company he helped found; do you think that's right or just?



No, there's nothing wrong with identifying groups that have bigotry right in their "mission statement", such as the KKK, as bigots, my problem is when people use a small subset of a group to smear the whole, as has been previously discussed.



Again, I don't believe that my opinions are so self evidently correct and righteous as to warrant forcing them upon others, as I don't want their beliefs forced upon me; better to set the precedent that no one can force their beliefs on others than to pave that road to hell with my good intentions. Besides, I'm above that, I don't treat anyone as subhuman because that's not in my nature, and nothing good ever comes of it; I think of it as an ends vs means situation, treating people poorly is always bad, even if you think you're doing it for good reasons.



Eh, I think it's more like socially acceptable targets are shifting, as this thread well demonstrates. Personally, I just like to keep people honest, and 'no tolerance for the intolerant' is a fat target for someone like me.

Most groups tend to dislike those who don't share their views. The reason Christians and Conservatives are labelled as bigots is because the left-wing 'progressives' are very vocal in condemning them at every turn. Labour and the left are the true bigots, but you wouldn't think so from the way things are portrayed on TV and the news media.

I am an individual and I approach other people as individuals. I don't find it horrifying in the least. In fact, losing my identity in an undifferentiated mob – that's what I would find horrifying.

If I realized, like the writer, that I conformed to every single stereotype of a certain "tribe", right down to the music I enjoyed and the restaurants I patronized – I would be disgusted. And I'd start making an effort to watch the "wrong" sports, eat at the "wrong" restaurants, maybe go to the "wrong" bar and strike up a conversation with the guy in the next stool. If nothing else, I'd have to suspect that I was missing some good stuff. Not him: he's content to be an indistinguishable member of a herd. I'll never understand that sort of tribal mentality.

This kind of "everyone else out there is the bad guy and just totally making it up" attitude does not help combat the stereotype of bigotry within conservatism in any way. It only makes you look like a you are either overly paranoid with some serious persecution illusions, somehow have internet access that only allows this site and Breitbart, or are simply completely incapable of thinking for yourself. Don't get me wrong, plenty of parrots in the ranks of the Dems as well, but when bigotry is the subject, you may want to steer clear of am hate radio talking points for your thoughts.

In what way do people who don't believe in capital punishment or who support abortion intolarant towards others who oppose those things? Disagreeing with the idea there should be no abortion, or opposing capital punishment does not make you bigoted towards people who disagree...disagreeing with someone is not the same as being intolerant of them or anyone who fits in a catagory they do. Of course people may not tolerate things like racist behavior ect but that is not intolerance in the sense of being a bigot. Also you'd have to be intolerant of 'anything' you don't like/agree with like a chiristian bigot would see anything outside of their belief system as wrong and think people need to change their beliefs and those who don't are heathens bound to hell for instance...like westboro baptist church an organization of bigots. You seem to be trying to broaden the definition beyond normal usage in the english language...by that broadening then yes I guess you're right everyone is a bigot.

Yes christians and conservatives do not do anything to perpetuate the image, or give the impression there is a lot of bigotry among them....its all just liberal lies and deceit

But what is the difference in being intolerant of their beliefs and just judging them for their beliefs? Isn't judging them for them being intolerant of their beliefs?

You can disagree with someone without judging them. You accept their view and respect it but you don't judge them for it and think anything different of them and not let it get in the way of how you get along with them nor let it ruin your friendship with them. I thought this is being tolerant of their views even though you don't agree with their view. But it seems like this doesn't happen in politics because people act like they hate each other and throw our insults and attacks due to different beliefs and people feel threatened by it so they feel they have to defend themselves and they view the other person as bad. I thought this is being intolerant of their views. That's why politics is a strong topic because it brings out strong feelings and it's hard to accept someone has a different opinion than you. It turns into a black and white issue because people view each other as good or bad due to different beliefs that isn't the same as theirs.


I don't know, I guess I am just confused about the word because of that accusation I got so I looked it up and saw the definition and thought "Oh everyone is one because we don't always agree and we won't always tolerant different views but that is okay." Now I should be asking where do we draw the line for when it doesn't make someone a bigot for being intolerant and when it does. Sometimes things are complicated for me to understand so it can take me years to understand the meaning of a word. I just go by how a word is used to know what it means and it does get confusing when people contradict it so i then think everyone has their own definition of the word and their own perception.

Conservative misbehaviour is really part of a liberal conspiracy to make conservatives look bad. It's never the conservatives fault ever.



An executive, or any other figure who exists in the public eye is entitled to whatever opinions they like. Whether or not they express them, and in what ways are entirely free to them. But, how people respond to these views and stances is also free.

I disagree with 'Eich never did anything that could be construed as discriminatory or homophobic, all he did was contribute to the "wrong" cause'. The cause in question was inherently discriminatory. He worked to help pass something that harmed people's rights and their dignity.

I won't lie, I'm definitely classist on this question, if he was 'working class' and his job situation represented a more direct threat to his well-being I'd be much more sympathetic.



I don't disagree that this occurs, but I think at least in some cases there's some grey area as well. Within 'Christian conservatives' (people who identify as both, especially people who identify as the first motivating the second), there are people who would agree with significant portions of the views espoused by various hate groups without actively supporting (or even sometimes outright condemning) the hate groups themselves.

Referring to the article you linked to, 'I Can Tolerate Anything But The Outgroup', these groups become outgroups for 'mainstream Red Tribe' in the same way 'Red Tribe' and 'the radical left' are both typically outgroups to 'Blue Tribe'.

For most of 'Blue tribe' 'Red Tribe' includes conservative libertarians, mainstream conservatives, paleoconservatives, neo-cons, Dominionist/theocrats, white nationalists, right wing authoritarians/neo-fascists ect.

For most of 'Red Tribe' 'Blue Tribe' includes mainstream liberals/progressives, social liberals, social democrats, socialists, black nationalists, Muslims, supporters of amnesty for illegal aliens, communists and their sympathizers, anarchists, all sorts of left and right wing authoritarians, ect.

In both cases if you ask 'typical' members of 'Blue Tribe' or 'Red Tribe' to define their own tribe many of those groups that the outsider includes the insider will not. Capitalist libertarians often feel uncomfortable with social conservatives (and vice-versa), liberals often feel uncomfortable with socialists (and vice-versa), libertarian socialists and authoritarian socialists rarely see each other as allies, white nationalists aren't often embraced, even by white people who share many of their core sentiments (same is largely true of any x nationalism in the Americas, anyways).

Liberals/libertarians/lib-socs/democratic socialists/classical liberals virtually universally decry authoritarianism from the left or right. This doesn't mean that 'Red Tribe' libertarians and 'Blue Tribe' libertarians won't accuse each other of supporting some sort of authoritarian ideology when they bicker.

The deconstruction of the article at the end was probably the most interesting part of the whole thing.



This is entirely agreeable.



I wouldn't disagree this is the overall effect, at least in that certain groups that were once off-limits are now more likely to get flak.

'No tolerance for intolerance' is different from 'no tolerance for the intolerant' though. I don't like the idea of punishing people for their ideas, but actions that have identifiable consequences are more questionable. That's the thing with contributing to political campaigns, that's 'speech' with explicit consequences, that's an action.

OT- yes it is. That linked piece crystallized a lot of thoughts that have been wandering around my brain for decades but I'm not terribly good at crystallizing such things. He explained why I have such a hard time understanding people who forgive somebody who murdered their kids (I would hate such a person forever). I always thought of myself as a forgiving person but I'm really not and being a forgiving person is so rare and difficult that seeing somebody who actually is feels weird- like why would you do that? Well done, sir.

And then the part about the multiple layers of in group/out group (the part which made it a relevent link to this thread) was excellent and crystallized something that I've been muddling through but not really able to put my finger on.

Just to make sure it wasn't a one-off I read a sample of other posts on the blog and they were just as good- although the one about the under-researching of nerd-as-group didn't become good until it got to the comments and other people challenged him and he thought through things some more. Thinking things through- that's a quality I appreciate. And if he stopped short (as he did in the nerd piece) he accepted the challenge to think through even farther rather than getting defensive. Yay him!

Anyhooo....bookmarked. Back to the thread.