Is "Bigot" Still A Meaningful Word?

[Sukerkin]

In the early hours of this morning, I ran off at the mouth a bit about Religion and it's evils and got called a "Bigot" by Elder, which I thought was not a fair appellation. He followed that up with a dictionary definition tho' and, to my chagrin, the 'cap' actually fitted :faints:. It was from Webster and states:

"A person who is obstinantly or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"

According to the OED, the derivation of the term is from late 16th century French and denotes a superstitious religious hypocrite. That is irony personified in and off itself but, leaving that aside, I am pondering if the word "Bigot" has lost it's currency by over-use and misapplication?

This is from the OED again:

"A person who has very strong, unreasonable beliefs or opinions about race, religion or politics and who will not listen to or accept the opinions of anyone who disagrees"

That definition gels more with my own interpretation of the meaning, even tho' it really is only a restating of the Webster definition. For myself, I have always thought that the term carried with it a proviso that bigotry is groundless or irrational hatred. With that 'cargo' it is a term with utility - otherwise it has descended into a 'wet blanket' of a word whose use is just to silence people who disagree with you.

Given that the population of MT, as I've said before, is a considerable cut above the average when it comes to thoughtfulness, does anyone else have views on the use to which "Bigot" is put in these days of Internet Common Parlance? For now, whilst I dwell on Elder's words, I shall not doff the new 'hat' he gave me until I decide whether I deserve it or not - it seems even shocking or unpleasant words can have their uses at times when it comes to making you think.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

In my opinion, the word has become conflated with others which together tend to describe everything from personal preference to racial and ethnic hatred. The words are bigotry, racism, prejudice, and intolerance.

To be prejudiced is to have made up one's mind. Often used as an epithet, being prejudiced in and of itself may not be a bad thing; we all have prejudices, and many are not the bogeymen of the mind that they are often used as.

To be intolerant is also not necessarily a bad thing. We are intolerant of many things which are merely expressions of personal preference and do not reflect on an irrational or socially-unacceptable dislike of anyone. I am certainly intolerant of racists, for example.

Bigotry is actually the word I use to describe hatred of a specific religion or those who believe in it. It is often conflated with racism (and I've done it, though I know full well the difference between them, mea culpa) because in common parlance, it reflects the same kind and degree of anger and dislike one sees in racial or ethnic hatred. Specifically, a racist is a bigot, but a bigot is not necessarily a racist. Both are intolerant, and all intolerance is prejudice of one sort or another.

All of these can be subjective in use. People who hold prejudices of all sorts can be in denial about those prejudices, or they can readily agree they have them, but feel that they are entirely justified and correct. Some people believes others hold opinions ranging from prejudices to racism and they are incorrect.

In some sense, yes, the words have lost their currency, I agree. By degrees, every online discussion eventually becomes subject to Godwin's Law, does it not?

And yet, like it or not, we see many aspects of human frailty and shortcomings online, and in microcosm on MT's Study Forum. Dislike of religion, dislike of specific religions and dislike of specific ethnicities are often seen. Outright racism is rare; most in the 21st century disavow it, whether they secretly harbor any or not (outside of the various online refuges for that sort of thing).

As an aside, I feel that all sorts of unfortunate beliefs and behaviors, from negative prejudices to racial hatred, are based on attempts to understand and classify the events and negative aspects of the world. If the economy is in shambles, there must be a single, explainable, and simple reason for it. In generations past, it was ethic or racial; now it is ethnic or religious, or even political. It is all the fault of those [insert group here]. As an example, it is easy to see the effect; it can be difficult if not impossible to divine the cause. It's far easier to reach for a simple answer. Furthermore, such answers tend to avoid self-blame. One seldom hears a person explain that the economy is in the doldrums due to many things, but partially due to our own living well beyond our means for many years. Greece? Oh yes, they deserve what they get. The US? No, that was the fault of the greedy banks and Wall Street and probably illegal aliens, and well, everything except us personally.

Extended, one can even say that noting the intolerance of others (as I often do, again mea culpa) is another form of trying to simplify and explain the beliefs and actions of others which may also have far more complex explanations, even if the actor understands those driving forces themselves. An example of this would be President Bush when he said that the Islamic terrorists "hate us for our freedom." Uh, no. But it's a simple explanation of a very complex set of dislikes of the West, many of which are vague and others specific, and which differ from Islamist terrorist to Islamist terrorist. No one, not even very bad people, are all the same or hold the same beliefs and opinions. Not even in their hatred.

None of us is immune to unreasonable, irrational, and even impossible beliefs. Most of them are relatively harmless. Some are self-damaging or self-consuming. Others are dangerous if action is fitted to belief.

Anyway, just rattling on a bit. Have a nice day, everyone. I unfortunately have to work today.

 

[elder999]

That definition gels more with my own interpretation of the meaning, even tho' it really is only a restating of the Webster definition. For myself, I have always thought that the term carried with it a proviso that bigotry is groundless or irrational hatred. With that 'cargo' it is a term with utility - otherwise it has descended into a 'wet blanket' of a word whose use is just to silence people who disagree with you.

.

If I were to say that I hate black people because "all of them are poor, live in trashed out ghettos and they commit more crimes, it might not be an altogether groundless hatred becuase it has some basis in fact, and it might not be irrational for the same reasons, but it's still bigoted.

When you say that religion is responsible for so many of the world's ills, and it's evil-that's not baseless or irrational either, but it's equally bigoted because it's not true for all religion. While your opinion about religion may be steadfast, and based in part upon sound reasoning (though that reasoning doesn't seem to take human nature into account) your obstinate adherence to it in the face of evidence to the contrary (as stated by you in that other thread) is evidence of, for lack of a better word, bigotry.

As for whether the word itself is still meaningful, well-I think it is, though I also think it's a tad overused. You'll note that I don't use it very often, and only when (I think) it's obvious. It's also worth noting that while "bigotry" implies "hatred," hate itself is not a necessary ingredient for bigotry to take place.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

If I were to say that I hate black people because "all of them are poor, live in trashed out ghettos and they commit more crimes, it might not be an altogether groundless hatred becuase it has some basis in fact, and it might not be irrational for the same reasons, but it's still bigoted.

And it is still based on seeking simple answers that seem to make sense. The fact that a higher percentage of crimes are committed by young black men in America is often used as a 'rational basis' for anti-black racism. Other circumstance, such as the fact that social and economic and geographic factors tend to result in very poor, inner city, children of working-class families are that group (and often black) are not considered because they are not simple, but require complex explanations and understanding which do not fix blame on a specific group or policy.

Likewise, others use the fact that a much higher percentage of young black men are in prison in America to come to the conclusion that America itself is racist; equally simplistic, equally unaccepting that the true reasons are far more complex than that.

In the end, we all want nice, simple answers and reasons. And if that involves bigotry or racism, some of us shrug and get on with the hating.

 

[Kacey]

In this age of "political correctness", the word "bigot" is used more and more by people who want to see changes in the way people talk, to remove words that are objectionable in some fashion. That is, in itself, a form of bigotry, often with a heaping dose of self-righteousness on top of it. If someone says something in a way that is objectionable to the listener - the speaker is a bigot. This is a quick and easy way to say "I don't like the terms you choose to use when describing this appearance/ability (or lack thereof)/situation/etc." In that sense, yes, I think the word bigot may be losing its punch.

I was talking to a friend who is from the Bahamas, who is of a skin color usually identified in the United States as African American - an appellation she dislikes, as no known person in the history of her family is from Africa. She considers herself and her family to be black, and refers to herself as such - all except her husband, who is a first-generation immigrant from Ghana, who refers to himself as Ghanan. She tried to explain this once to a member of her church - who called my friend a bigot for refusing to use the PC term even though she felt it wasn't descriptive of herself or children, even the one who's father was Ghanan. I think the true bigot in this story is the church member who cannot accept my friend's self-identification.

My point is this - in the rush to insure that no one is referred to by a potentially pejorative term, many words that refer to people who do use such politically incorrect (and therefore pejorative) terms are now considered to be bigots - no matter their history, perspective, or rationale - so yes, I think the term "bigot" is overused in a fashion not encompassed by the OED definition, and rather more often than it is used correctly.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

The term is also used as a discussion-ending phrase when either side wishes to disengage from the conversation.

Case A:"I refuse to have this discussion with a bigot."
Case B:"Oh, I see, I'm a bigot, am I? Well, I think we're done talking."

In neither case is the validity of the term meaningful. The person so accused may or may not be a bigot; but both use it as their reason for dropping the discussion.

In that sense, it is no different in modern discussions than being cited with Godwin's Law. A person may or may not be a 'Nazi' or nazi-like in any number of ways, but once the accusation is made, that is no longer the point.

On the other hand, words have valid meanings. There are such things as bigots, and to refrain from using the term for fear of giving insult does not seem correct either. And I've only run into a few people in my life who have accepted the label of either 'bigot' or 'racist'. Sure there are more than one or two bigots and racists on the entire planet; but most of them apparently think they are not.

 

[Twin Fist]

Mark,
since you will NEVER get Elder to say he was wrong, about anything, you might as well own it and make it your own!!

WORK IT

 

[Sukerkin]

:chortles: Just as soon as I get the just-this-minute-snortled-beer out of my beard :lol:

That one caught me by surprise .

 

[Sukerkin]

I really am interested in peoples views on how the term has come to be used tho'. I didn't mean this to be a 'duelling' thread between Elder and myself about whether I'm a bigot or not. I will raise my hand to "strongly opinionated but willing to listen to alternate views"; still not convinced I 'qualify' for Bigot First Class but that's not why I started this thread.

In the 'source thread', it truly was a case of my getting a bit 'broad brushed' in the early hours, Elder clipping me round the ear for it, my going "Now just wait a moment!" ... thinking for a minute and, as I phrased it above, realising the 'cap', as defined, fitted. It's not the way I use the term (and I do prefer the OED definition rather than the Webster one) so it sparked an interest on whether, primarily because of the torrent of useage on the Net, the term was becoming a touch destitute.

 

[elder999]

Mark,
since you will NEVER get Elder to say he was wrong, about anything, you might as well own it and make it your own!!

Actually, I've admitted I was wrong several times in the past. In one instance, I even admitted to being bigoted.

In this instance, I'm not wrong.

Here, though, is one time I admitted I was wrong-it was before you got here, John, and I think it'll surprise ya.....

edit: Actually, John, you posted on that thread, so you should know better. Hmmmph!

) so it sparked an interest on whether, primarily because of the torrent of useage on the Net, the term was becoming a touch destitute.

I don't think so-I just think there are more, and different kinds of bigots, with more things to be bigoted about.

 

[Makalakumu]

The good news is that Bigot is a slippery label. If it doesn't fit, it won't stick. If it does fit, you can change it and take it off. The only time it stays is when you push it on like a sticky note whose adhesive is wearing out.