Tony_Tarantula on 19/1/2015 at 16:08
And would it be considered bigoted because the opinion is actually based in prejudice, or because said view goes against the "consensus" view of that group?
Specter's right. While the "meaning" may still be the same, overuse of the words as a tactic to shut down legitimate debate desensitizes people to the terms to the point that people don't react to the word anymore. Furthermore the use of the word "bigoted" is frequently used to cover up actions far more reprehensible than simple feeling prejudiced.......What's worse? Being a closet anti-semite or systematic oppression of the palestinians conducted by the Israelis?
To put this in terms of a decision that you'd probably encounter in a Bioware RPG, would you rather support someone who is fighting against an oppressor but has racial prejudice against the oppressor or would you rather support those doing the oppressing?
I know that a lot of the thought-police types seem incapable of grasping this concept but I tend to judge people by their actions and the consequences thereof, not by whether they espouse the "right" causes.
faetal on 19/1/2015 at 16:13
If someone believes that Palestinians are trying to eradicate Israel with their rockets and Israel are just defending themselves, then this is not bigotry. If someone however believes that Israelis are superior to Palestinians somehow, then this is bigoted. You can't throw out a word because some people whose social attitude you don't like are misusing it. The word bigoted is absolutely fit for purpose - if someone is misusing it to shut down an argument, then just call them out on it - if they're using the word incorrectly, then there are plenty of links to online dictionaries to prove this.
Also, I'm not sure where you are going with your BioWare thing.
Tony_Tarantula on 19/1/2015 at 16:59
Quote Posted by faetal
If someone believes that Palestinians are trying to eradicate Israel with their rockets and Israel are just defending themselves, then this is not bigotry. If someone however believes that Israelis are superior to Palestinians somehow, then this is bigoted. You can't throw out a word because some people whose social attitude you don't like are misusing it. The word bigoted is absolutely fit for purpose - if someone is misusing it to shut down an argument, then just call them out on it - if they're using the word incorrectly, then there are plenty of links to online dictionaries to prove this.
Also, I'm not sure where you are going with your BioWare thing.
Attempting to put in a way that this audience might be more receptive to.
And quite frankly, that's generally been attempted. It's nice in theory but it doesn't work in practice to just "call them out on it". You're attempting to counter emotion with logic and most people are going to go with emotion every time.
faetal on 19/1/2015 at 18:23
This does not mean that you get to designate a word as "over" because you don't like its misuse. If someone is misusing it, then don't engage with that person.
Why bother with the "they're ruining our words" histrionics? Doesn't achieve anything.
heywood on 19/1/2015 at 18:27
It achieves another thread hijacking, which seems to be Tony's specialty.
faetal on 19/1/2015 at 18:33
The term "threadjacking" is used by SJWs to shut down debate.
heywood on 19/1/2015 at 21:30
If it shuts down the preceding sub-thread then I'm good.
I would rather talk about how to integrate Muslim immigrant populations into Western nations without provoking violent culture clash. The process seems to be going in the wrong direction.
Let me ask you guys & gals about this story:
(
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/01/16/377714066/dukes-muslim-students-prepare-for-prayers-amid-controversy) http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/01/16/377714066/dukes-muslim-students-prepare-for-prayers-amid-controversy
If you're like me and have lived most of your life in places with a predominantly Christian population, you have probably heard church bells ringing on Sundays, so much so you probably don't even notice anymore. So how would you feel about hearing the call to prayer every Friday? I can't say it would bother me at all. The disturbing part of the article is the "credible and serious security threat" if they went through with the plan.
Specter on 20/1/2015 at 00:10
Uh, your going in a "new" direction ties directly to what I had said, and what Tony was arguing. I guess I'm a filthy threadjacker too.
My point was that discussions about how to integrate minorities often end up with calls of bigotry. You can't talk about an all encompassing and friendly melting pot of various faiths and cultures without addressing the question of what and who must change to achieve harmony. Whether you argue that the minority should change, or the majority, the affected group will resist change. In such cases, you get calls of racism and bigotry. In both directions.
I (and I think Tony too) am not arguing the word has an altered meaning, but that its over-use has made it less severe. You can only hear it so many times before you do not react. It's misuse/overuse works against constructive dialogue.
I am not sure why discussing the prevalence of bigotry and racism is such a problem here, or how discussing integrating Muslim populations is somehow more 'on-topic', when the two things are so intertwined.
Kolya on 20/1/2015 at 00:50
A lot of Muslims hasten to say that these attacks have nothing to do with Islam because Islam is a peaceful religion. And a common western reaction is to scoff at that perceived cynicism and point at the IS and many terrorists attacks with a Muslim background in recent years.
Of course it would be more correct if moderate Muslims said instead: This violence has nothing to do with OUR Islam. But that doesn't go very well with divine legitimation and a universal claim of validity, which all the monotheistic religions share. Instead the part of your religion that you don't like is declared unchristian, not Islam, etc.
It's a fight for Deutungshoheit (sovereignty of interpretation) within the religious community.
So with that in mind and the fact that something like 1.8 billion people are Muslims I think it's pretty clear that we need to support those who say that this has nothing to do with Islam in their peaceful interpretation of their religion.
As an atheist I may recite John Lennons dream of a world without religion to myself, but as a pragmatist I know that Islam isn't going to go away any more than those other religions. So I'd rather live peacefully with them.
On the other hand I do wonder what makes thousands of Muslims think they need to protest against Charlie Hebdo in Niger or Chechnya. What do they care about some French magazine they probably never heard of before?
That's where that universal claim of validity that used to be spiritual in nature changes into a territorial claim as Muslims from far away countries practically demand to change laws in France and Europe. That's what you get when delusional people get internet, I guess. We come into their homes with our western culture which they perceive as a threat and that is their reply.
faetal on 20/1/2015 at 09:37
A larger point is that this kind of thing isn't restricted to Islam - there are plenty of Christian on Muslim massacres occurring in Africa (also, the Sabra Shatila massacre in Lebanon in the '80s was particularly brutal), but we don't get that in our press because it isn't news until nice white people we can identify with get affected. Likewise, there is plenty of violence from Buddhist extremists in Burma (Dema can probably pad that out if need be), but I don't think many people are worried about the inherent violence of Buddhism. Also not to be forgotten is the Muslim on Mulsim violence between Shi'ites and Sunnis
One parallel which springs to mind is the sectarian violence in Northern Ireland throughout the '70s, '80s and '90s. Many paramilitaries were unemployed, disenfranchised men from poor areas who felt their constitutive anger towards other people legitimised when given a cause to throw it at. Suddenly, all of that ghetto anger had some kind of higher purpose and allowed for the focus of all of that frustration to be externalised. Fast forward to now, where the troubles have all but ceased (barring a smouldering background of (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_holdout) Japanese island fighters) and most of those who were previously respected/feared paramilitaries have now either moved on and got lives or have reverted to the stereotype wannabe gangsters, still chasing that precious status which came with having a cause.
You only have to look to the US / UK / France / etc involvement in the Middle East, with the ongoing support of Israel as the ideological epicentre, to see what higher purpose these disaffected violent imbeciles are latching on to as their cause. I don't think we're going to solve it with drone strikes and collateral damage. For every supposed militant killed, usually at the expense of a bunch of civilians who got in the way, a few more are inspired to replace them, probably a bit fed up by seeing their friends and relatives killed for nothing more than being in the way of whatever the US / UK / France / etc objective is and maybe not assuaged by the phrase "unfortunate mistake" when it's the hundredth unfortunate mistake that year.
Sure the killing of cartoonists is non-justifiable to the extreme - a boycott (which you'd image would be automatic for anyone following a religion which forbids drawing its prophet) would be enough, but it wasn't the result of some global jihad demanded by Islam, it was the result of 2 impressionable idiots with violent history, influenced by an extremist group, probably because they gravitated to the idea that their stupid personalities were part of some higher purpose rather than just the result of a shitty life in some shitty ghetto with no purpose other than to ruin other people's lives.
Of course moderates in all religions pull the "no true Scotsman" fallacy - that's inherent to any religion which doesn't follow its scripture to the letter. Christianity is riddled with this also - apparently the word of god is infallible, but we can ignore all of the rape, murder, mutilation and slavery in the scripture because "those were different times" or whatever, implying that god itself was somehow ignorant and detestable just like people, until an arbitrary enlightenment which it presumably didn't see coming, despite being omniscient.
Anyway, rant over. I'm sure there there's plenty there which can be dismissed or pulled apart. One thing I would note though - if, during the process of your discussion, someone calls you bigoted - accept that there are two possibilities: 1) a card is being played over-zealously by someone who wants to shut you down without having to form an argument; 2) you are actually being bigoted - bigots don't think they're bigots remember, else we wouldn't have the phrase "I'm not racist but...".
