How do we define 'Bigotry'? A start to an important conversation

[stevenleser]

Let me immediately clarify by saying that the 'We' is the DU community.

I raise this question because it has come up so many times in the past. Issues like use of the 'B' word that rhymes with 'itch', the recent gay caveman thread, 'zionism', etc., become extremely ugly and divisive threads and situations. I am hoping that we as a community can discuss what we believe constitutes bigotry and thus draw a line in the sand. People who cross it, I think, should be tombstoned. As I mentioned to Skinner when I wrote this OP in the "Ask the Administrators" forum http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=437x2594 :

"There is this previous question about bigotry towards Jews http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

There was a recent picture posted that many of us believe constitutes bigotry against Blacks (the OP was locked), and there is the ongoing conversations in GLBT forum and elsewhere about bigotry toward gays. We also had the questions about where the line is when Hillary was running for the nomination about bigotry toward women. I can see the question coming up about latinos if immigration becomes a hot topic again..."
-----------------------------
Let me start off by saying that in general, I defer to the group being targeted when it comes to determining what is bigotry, but I feel we should also have the right to ask, "OK, why do you think this is bigoted?" when the situation is not obvious. I asked such a question twice in the last 3 years, once regarding the 'B' word (I accepted the explanation of women here who explained that it is bigoted. Not only do I object to its use online and ensure I don't use it online, I correct people who I hear using the word in the real world). I also raised the question in regards to arguing about the priority of movement on gay civil rights issues. Is it OK to argue that, for instance, health care reform should come before an end to DADT or DOMA? Not only that, such arguments became intense and some people used the unfortunate term "Pony" to describe the furthering of gay rights. I think that is wrong and nasty, but is that bigoted? Also, if you are one of the people who used the term "Pony" do you want to take the opportunity of this OP to apologize to the LGBT community here?

I think a parallel to the use of "Pony" is the use of the words "Zionist/Zionism". I think it is theoretically possible to use these words and not be bigoted, but I think there is a strong possibility that those who use them are in fact bigoted or at the very least are using them as a dog whistle (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics if you are unfamiliar with the term). Should these kinds of terms be banned and those who use them tombstoned? How about the use of a monkey to depict President Obama?

How does the rest of DU feel about this? I offer as a starting point to the discussion that anyone who is against complete equal rights for women, latinos, gays, african americans, jews, muslims, etc., should be shown the door.

What do my fellow DU'ers think?

[Bragi]

1. I support free speech

Since you asked, i can say that I'm more afraid of censorship than I am with open debate.

I can support banishing bigoted arguments and bigoted statements, though I'd ratehr just debate and defeat such arguments.

I am less supportive of banning "words" because we think they may send secret signals ("dog whistles") to bigots.

Again, I'd rather confront anyone using such terms and defeat them if they are bigots by using persuasive arguments.

[stevenleser]

3. So am I right in saying that you think nothing should be deleted no matter what is said and that...

no one should be banned for, just as an example, use of the 'n' word, calling a woman that awful word that begins with a 'c', etc?

I understand the point of view and I think it has some merit (even though I vigorously disagree) I just want to make sure I understand you correctly.

[Bragi]

5. To be more clear on this...

I'm not in favour of allowing obvious racist or bigoted terms, such as the N word.

The C-word, however, is an interesting example. This word is commonly used as a strong profanity in some parts of the English speaking world (like the UK and Ireland) but far as i know, it isn't actually associated with bigotry in those societies.

[stevenleser]

7. I will bet that most feminists disagree with you if I recall the B**** discussions

My money is on that they will remind you to what body part the 'c' word refers and since it implies a bad thing, it almost has to be bigoted.

Now, I have been to Europe several times and I have heard UK'ers using the word in bars and it is obviously less strong to them than it is in the US but I cannot help but think it means that something about women is 'bad'

[Bragi]

8. Dunno

For me, and most Brits, using the c-word doesn't imply "a bad thing." It's just an irreverent term used perjoratively to describe an a-hole (!) of either sex. (Actually, it's usually used to describe men.)

Which makes me wonder if your focus on "words" really hones in on the crux of racist or bigoted commentary. It seems to me that what makes something bigoted isn't so much particular words, it is associating a group with negative behavior or characteristics, and stereotyping people in that group.

A good example here comes up in debates here about Islamic terrorism. If someone claims Muslims engage in or support terrorism, I think that is bigoted.

If someone says, however, that some Muslims engage in or support terrorism, then that is, in my view, a statement of fact that, in and of itself, is neither racist or bigoted.

At least according to me. So far.

[stevenleser]

11. I agree that words are only part of it. I discussed them with you because you brought up specifics

Regarding Muslims and terrorism, it may be factual to say that "some Muslims engage in or support terrorism", but is that the kind of thing that we want to be said here? To bring up another issue, some folks didn't believe that it was possible to suggest that a several thousand year old caveman was gay based on archeological knowledge and what we know about some of the cultures of that time. The individual was male but buried in a way that was usually reserved for females. Was it necessary for some to express doubt with the findings? Such things are inherently uncertain anyway. Is it hard to predict how the LGBT community will deal with someone emphasizing the uncertainty? How far should we go for Muslims and the LGBT community in the above circumstances? Those are the things I am hoping to get at.

[Bragi]

40. You wrote:

...it may be factual to say that "some Muslims engage in or support terrorism", but is that the kind of thing that we want to be said here?

You are stating that there are discussions on DU where it would be bigoted to say something relevant to the topic that you acknowledge as being "factual." I presume that wasn't your intention.

[JustAnotherGen]

41. It's often used by

Women hating men in the U.S. to undermine and demean women. That way they don't have to confront the fact that they are inadequate in every way, shape, and form. ;-) Dodge, deflect, and defer.

[Bragi]

43. Stop being a dick

:)

[EFerrari]

12. Using a woman's body part as an insult is demeaning to women, yes. n/t

[stevenleser]

18. And that is where I thought most women would position themselves on that...

so in your opinion, should people who use that word be tombstoned?

[EFerrari]

19. Having made so many mistakes myself

it could be treated first as a mistake, an opportunity to do different should the poster choose to do different.

[Bragi]

26. If I call someone a dick, am I anti-men? /nt

[stevenleser]

28. I would argue yes. Since men are not a minority class and do not suffer prejudice, we dont typically

object. But it is a word/statement that is bigoted against men.

[Bragi]

35. Sir, your argument there is silly

It lacks common sense. If someone calls another person a dick, it means they think the person is acting in a stupid manner. As you know anyway, using this phrase simply does not confer on the speaker bigotry against all men.

Your attempt to be purely logical here has resulted in you making this incorrect assumption. This may say something about your overall attempt to codify words so that their usage in and of itself can be seen as evidence of bigotry.

[stevenleser]

51. See Thomcat's #46 which is exactly the point. It is still gender loaded language. n/t

[ThomCat]

46. Calling someone a dick is still still using gender loaded language,

based on sexual anatomy. It means you can't seem to think outside of gender and anatomy based insults, which is usually indicative of someone with a problem being sexist, even if you are attacking a guy at the moment.

[Bragi]

55. I don't buy that at all

Calling someone a dick is a denigrating term, but it NOT "indicative of someone with a problem (of) being sexist." I will go further and say that claiming that this term is sexist seems to be indicative of someone who hasn't thought through what actually constitutes bigotry.

As others have pointed out in this thread, barring the use of extreme and obvious bigoted language, it is not possible to identify a bigot simply by identifying phrases they may use in expressing their thoughts. To identify a bigot, you have to understand the context in which language is used, and the ideas being expressed through the use of that language, if you want to make a judgment about whether a person making a particular argument is or is not a bigot.

That's how I see it anyway.

[ThomCat]

45. You would be wrong about using any derogotory reference to

a woman's anatomy, and thinking this is somehow not a sign of bigotry against women.

It may be culturally common somewhere, among men who are commonly sexist. That does not make it right. Either there, or here.

That also does not justify ignoring language that supports bigotry and prejudice because of some supposed blanket support for free speech.

That simply amounts to saying that you don't care what anyone else thinks, as long as you aren't personally offended. Your lack of empathy and concern for others is noted, and may in fact, be symptomatic of discussion at hand.

[Bragi]

57. See how easy it is to call someone a bigot?

You illustrate an important point here.

You have seamlessly gone in this posting from expressing a differing view from mine on how to define bigotry (which is fine with me) to claiming that since I disagree with you, I therefore "lack empathy and concern for others" and "may be" a bigot.

Think about that. And since you have vaguely accused me of "maybe" being a bigot, I'd be curious who you think I might be bigoted against, since I've not mentioned a single group in any of my postings in this thread?

Or maybe I am just blowing one of those invisible "dog whistles" that are apparently audible only to bigots and specially trained anti-bigots?

Finally, as for my "supposed blanket support for free speech", I can assure you, there is nothing "supposed" about it. I vigorously and proudly support free speech, and quite prepared to defend it from attacks by people of any political persuasion who try to silence speech and ideas they don't agree with.

[SidDithers]

2. K&R...

I, too, believe there should be a bright line in the sand, with significant consequences when it's crossed. I also believe that the monkey picture you referenced was definitely bigoted.

Good post.

Sid

[leftstreet]

4. Be wary of people who want a "line in the sand"

What they're generally looking for is a way to cross it without being detected

(I don't mean you or your OP. You're just raising the question)

[stevenleser]

6. I thought of that. I hope that doesnt end up describing a lot of people.

It doesn't have to be a line in the sand, as long as it is very clear principles.

[Jim__]

9. I think the vast majority of DUers are for complete equal rights for everyone.

I think issues come up about how those rights are implemented. I'd hate to see people tombstoned because they disagree about some point of implementation and someone else sees that as being against equal rights. I think tombstoning is best decided on a case by case basis; not on ambiguous generic rules.

[stevenleser]

10. The point is to come up with rules or guidelines that are not ambiguous.

While sometimes the argument is about how and in what order things are done, that is not always the case. What is your opinion on the various gay caveman threads and how they devolved? Should Obama be depicted as a monkey?

The first and most important part of this discussion IS the discussion. The end result of that discussion might be that we do nothing differently. But I think we should all talk more about this.

[Jim__]

14. When I speak of implementation, I'm not just speaking about the order that things are done.

For instance, if you favor affirmative action, are you for or against equal rights? Should someone be tombstoned because of where they come down on that issue?

What is your opinion on the various gay caveman threads and how they devolved?

I actually didn't see them.

Should Obama be depicted as a monkey?

Certainly dubya was depicted that way. Was someone who depicted dubya that way for or against equal rights? If someone agrees that it's not any violation of equal rights to depict dubya that way but it is such a violation to depict Obama that way, are they for or against equal rights? I realize that this question can be decided on terms of republican/democratic president; but then we are not addressing it as an issue of equal rights.

[stevenleser]

17. Generally, Democrats, Liberals, Progressives feel that affirmative action IS equal rights

Should someone be tombstone who is against that? I am unsure about that. I lean toward 'yes'.

I also think that depicting someone who is christian as a miser is not the same as depicting someone Jewish as a miser. The same goes for the monkey. Depicting a white person as a monkey has no ethnocentric connotation. Depicting a black person as a monkey, however, is something that racist hate groups have done for over 200 years.

[Jim__]

20. It sounds like you only want to allow opinions that agree with yours.

That's not actually a progressive or liberal position.

BTW, I favor affirmative action, but I have heard strong arguments against it. Banning such arguments is just plain chicken-shit.

[stevenleser]

29. Actually, it is a progressive and liberal position. And yes, I only want Liberal/Democratic

positions here. I thought that was the point.

[Jim__]

37. The point is that when people's positions are wrong, there should not be a rule against telling them

For instance, your claim that: affirmative action IS equal rights is incorrect. I doubt that is a common liberal or progressive opinion. Affirmative action is an implementation step on the way to equal rights, a step that many people claim is not only unnecessary, but actually an obstruction. Just about everyone agrees that when we actually achieve equal rights, affirmative action can be ended.

One point of discussing issues is to clarify points so that people can adjust their positions. Censorship only compels that people continue to live in ignorance.

[stevenleser]

52. If we create a poll here, or any other Democratic leaning site, you will see quickly how you are

wrong. I would also use anti-Affirmative action as one of the positions I would argue is demonstrative of at the very least, using a dog whistle.

[stevenleser]

15. Additionally, I think the issue is that we are failing as a community to address these things well

Ask any LGBT DUer and they will tell you. Ask most Jewish, African American and female DUers and they will probably tell you they have had many situations where they feel that people were bigoted toward them or their minority group.

[stevenleser]

13. More examples, cross posted from Sapphocrat (I hope it is OK with them)

These are posts that Sapphocrat found objectionable from an LGBT perspective (I agree with Sapphocrat on most of them):


>> From 2003:

“I am not anti-gay rights but…. I don’t think this is a good time for the gay-marriage issue.”

“Please don’t get me wrong. I’m not gay, but I’m not homophobic either. I’m just thinking that this decision is bad, bad timing politically. ...”

“It is too soon for gay marriage”

“Why not advance the idea of civil unions first. Let people get use to that idea and then push for marriage.”

“This isn’t the time. Our number one priority has to be getting bush the hell out of office. This won’t help that cause.”

“I’ve never met anyone, liberal or not who didn’t express utter disgust at the idea of gay marriage. This includes people I know who are otherwise open-minded and liberal on most every other issue.

“Some form of gay rights such as a civil union of some sort would be more acceptable. But for 99% of the people out there the very idea of gay marriage is just repulsive with capitial R. The gay marrige issue would severely cripple any democratic candidate’s to beat Bush if they support it. Let’s not go down that road."

“... These are much more pressing issues then whether a gay person should be allowed to marry. I’m not homophobic, but I feel that gays ought to think about the well-being of others much less fortunate than themselves.”

“How should we handle wedge issues? Like gay marriage, flag burning & abortion… I say we dismiss them completely. Firmly say that it’s manufactured to divide us & leave it at that. When pressed, just say you won’t take the bait. If someone feels so strongly about it, they can join a special interest group.”

From 2004:

“The gay marriage issue hijacked our party. I think the gay and lesbian community decided to make this a visible issue on state ballots because they thought they could ride on the coattails of the Mass. court decision and Kerry. They ended up hurting him. They could have waited until an off Presidential election year to go ballistic. This issue ended up being identified directly with Kerry on the Ohio ballot and ten other states. Many Democratic Christians who would have normally voted for Kerry went with their family and moral values. I’m not homophobic…”

What would be hilarious if it weren't so utterly ridiculous: This poster seems to believe gay people were responsible for putting anti-gay marriage BANS on twelve state ballots in 2004! These were marriage BANS, not marriage-equality bills!

“You DO need to get over it! You are a citizen of the United States before you are gay. You owe a responsibility to your country FIRST!! Yeah, you’re gay, many people are, we cannot allow the you know who’s to use gays as the new ‘blacks’ to divide our country with the gay marriage issue.”

“I think the Democratic Party should not even come close to this issue. The farther away the better. If this becomes a major issue with leading Democrats crusading for gay marriage, George McGovern will end up looking like a successful candidate.”

“my gay friends, delay marriage … Just delay till December. Why hand Republicans 5 percent more of the vote, when you can stay quietly on the sidelines and deny them this issue?”

“I Am Outraged By Gay People … Well, not really. But I am kinda annoyed by their (meaning those forcing the issue, not all gays) impeccably bad sense of timing. … By pushing this into an unpopular culture war during an election year, these gay activists are screwing up their own agenda. If they demonstrated a few months of patience, it would serve them well.”<<

AND HER CONCLUSION:

>>Mind you, these comments I quoted were limited solely to the issue of marriage equality, and have nothing to do with any of the other "classic" blow-ups such as the Snickers ad, the neverending "discussion" about why we gays have to act so gay at Pride parades, etc., etc.

I'm sure some reading this will want to jump all over me for digging up posts now as much as eight years old. After all, you will want to say, "But things have changed! Skinner has really been working hard to bring DU together! It's not fair to dig up such old posts!"

Before you do, however, consider these points (and here comes The Big Rant, with "YOU" referring to all those people who think we should sit down, shut up, and let the "grown-ups" decide what's best for us):

1) The posts I quoted above represent the smallest fraction of the garbage we have had to put up with for the better (or rather worse) part of a decade.

2) These posts represent a pattern that has never ended.

3) That I was able to dig up such posts which were then more than five years old tells you that such blatantly anti-gay, offensive, and downright cruel posts were never deleted. Oh, I can guarantee you some (I'm guessing most) were alerted on, but there they remained (and may even exist today -- I don't know).

4) These posts represent the attitude: "It's not about YOU GAYS! It's all about US, and how YOUR issues affect US!"<<

[EFerrari]

16. There's a lot of casual because accepted bigotry that as Americans

is just not on our radar. That's one thing.

Another is, I have come to really appreciate Skinner's stance that the assumption here at DU is, we are people of good will. (Sorry if I mangled that, Skinner.) Because most people here are.

So, taking these two propositions together, it may be that the most productive discussions we can have is in addressing disagreements among people of good will where new information or another slant of an issue may be helpful to resolving disagreement.

If we conduct our discussions on the assumption of good will, posters who really don't have it become very obvious and so more easy for the mods to deal with according to the rules already in place.

Dog whistling is a problem because it is ill will in drag. But, in my experience anyway, people who do that eventually out themselves.

That's probably not very helpful.

[Bragi]

27. Actually, that IS helpful /nt

[Odin2005]

21. I do not think we should tolerate intolerant bigots who refuse to be reasonable.

IMO philosopher Karl Popper said it best:

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

[closeupready]

24. I've seen this discussion pop up in the GLBT forum before, and it really irritates me.

I think the context was a legislator in France was sponsoring some bill that would prohibit gay marriage there (and this was maybe six years ago???), and someone started a thread about it, and some GLBT members (who, as I recall, were all well-intentioned - but misguided by the logic of 'unlimited tolerance') voiced support for this douchebag's right to push a homophobic bill, arguing that if we in the GLBT community failed to support his right to hate us, then we would be as bad as, for example, Jesse Helms or some other homophobic douchebag.

Setting aside the notion that DU is not a public, government-run forum and all that this would entail, it seems nonsensical to argue that members of a minority are obligated to protect the rights of those who would attack and kill them (figuratively or literally). Why the fuck should that be MY job? :wtf: Don't these assholes have enough friends of their own to do that? Let THEM do it.

Anyway, sorry, this is probably a side discussion, but I wanted to make that comment in light of your post. Cheers. :)

[Zorra]

25. Yes, I agree. Great quote, thanks. nt

[stevenleser]

31. OK, but how do you apply that to some of the problem threads and comments we have had here?

How do you apply that to "Pony" or objecting to the idea of a gay caveman?

How do you apply that to people who rail on about "Zionism" or similar things?

[Zorra]

34. It would take some discernment, but it is not all that difficult

for a "reasonable" person to distinguish rational discourse from hate spewing, even if the hate spewing is veiled or coded.

Rational discourse on a forum like DU can lead to growth through the expression of conflicting ideas that can eventually lead to a growth in knowledge for all parties involved in a discussion and onlookers as well.

If everyone agreed with me all the time it would just stunt my growth. It is the challenge of understanding a different POV and the ramifications of that POV that often increases my understanding of both my own POV and the POV(s) of the person(s) I am having a discussion with.

"As truth is gathered, I rearrange."

Fairly open, tolerant, and genuinely good-hearted people can suffer from not even realizing that they harbor unconscious, enculturated prejudices. A logical, rational discussion can really help someone like this overcome their unconscious, unreasonable enculturated prejudices.

IMO, it is worth the risk of moderate discomfort in order to gain the genuine ally that will become enlightened and join in the struggle against discrimination of every kind.

The qualifying word here is "rational". There were, in the past, some very irrational ideas floating around (exemplified by your re-post of the awful, painfully ignorant quotes that Sapphocrat searched out and posted) here that were over the top and that got a pass when they undeniably shouldn't have. As Sapphocrat, and Skinner ("mending fences") as well, have pointed out, some serious mistakes have been made at DU with regard to understanding the sensitivities involved in civil rights issues. But nobody is perfect. These mistakes have been justly called out and recognized. It is not my intention to diminuate the hurt caused by these mistakes, I am affected by them also; it is only to say that it serves no constructive purpose to dwell on these mistakes if we can all agree to move forward with a new and broader understanding of the depth of enculturated discrimination, and the desire to do, and be, better, kinder, and more tolerant human beings because of this understanding.

But like Popper inferred and in answer to your direct questions, IMO, there needs to be boundaries defining what is rational, and what is not rational, discussion. Spouting derogatory expletives such as "Pony" and railing unjustifiably about "Zionism" are probably outside these boundaries.

Objecting to the idea of a gay caveman may be within these boundaries, because discussion of the find, IMO, may be more likely to bring to light the unconscious prejudices of the objector to the extreme benefit of the objector.

In the end, the mods decide based on personal judgment and assessment of a standard criteria, etc; but IMO, regarding drawing that "line in the sand" too close, being a bit too intolerant, of some unconscious enculturated prejudices can lead to limiting the exchange of constructive/instructive ideas that could result in growth and tolerance that is beneficial to everyone.

[closeupready]

22. For bigotry here on DU against gays, there is a sort of baseline, and that is,

that Skinner has made as part of the policy to which you agree when you initiate your account here that you must support equality for gay people, period. In my opinion (that's to say, this is not necessarily that this is the policy here), ANYTHING less than such full support, and that member should be shown the door pronto. Plenty of reich wing sites you can spread your homophobic shit on, but NOT here, not on DU. Ever.

Now how does that point figure into your question in the opening post? It gets more complicated from topic to topic, but I just wanted to make sure that you understand, at a basic level, what is and isn't acceptable with regard to topics and discussions regarding GLBT people.

If I'm wrong, mods or Skinner please correct me.

[stevenleser]

30. I accept that nothing less than full equality for all groups is the baseline.

That I think is something we all accept. Those who dont will be shown the door eventually.

I'm more concerned with statements that do not come out and say "I am not for equal rights for X group" but instead are something less.

I think the gay caveman thread is a good example. No one in that thread said that they were against equal rights for gays. But it is clear that those who were fighting the idea of the caveman were at the very least insensitive and at the very most were outing themselves as bigots. What should we do in a case like that. THis is the kind of thing I think we should talk about.

[closeupready]

36. I think Starry states something important below, that context must be considered

along with other aspects of how and why posts get posted. One size does not fit all, I realize, and that's why good mods are essential, to look at the big picture. I don't think anyone wants thought control going on; we all like to feel we can express ourselves honestly here. We should be among friends. I wish I was better at providing good answers. :hi:

[Starry Messenger]

23. This is probably more a conversation about privilege

There is some outright bigotry here, but I think much of the gray area comes from folks who haven't examined what it means to live outside of the dominant cultural in-group of the country. (This includes issues of poverty and class as well).

Using your pony example, a person who repeatedly uses this word to gay people might be "for" gay rights in an academic sense in that they vote for them, support politicians who support them, but frequently can't help but be mean and dismissive of gay DU members who actually live lives as gay Americans. Dismissing a minority like that contributes to institutional homophobia and does nothing to further the conversation. It is patronizing at best. I think most people deep down know that but do it anyway because they got away with it for a long time. Doing it once might be explained away, but we had quite a few repeat offenders a few years ago who were given ample explanation by the community here, so ignorance could no longer be an excuse. When does "nasty" shade into "bigoted"?

[stevenleser]

32. That is the essential question that I think we should wrestle with

"When does "nasty" shade into "bigoted"?

I would add, when does "nasty" or "insensitive" shade into "bigoted" and what do we do about it? What are/should we ask Skinner and the mods to do about it?

[Starry Messenger]

33. Skinner has stated that he expects that DU3 might take care of some of this.

I'm not sure what that is going to look like, or what he sees happening with the new system. This conversation might look very different depending on what comes about when we change over. My own thoughts at this point would be a system that looks for reports of overall patterns of behavior. We also need a way to consider the context of threads, and how and why they are made in the environment of the ongoing conversation. Often, it is hard to pinpoint offensively bigoted behavior unless you can show how it occurred in a grouping of threads. Otherwise, comments look isolated.

[txwhitedove]

38. DU posts that begin with pseudo newsflash "TEXAS: ..." is a call for bigotry.

Texans think Mississippians are stupid and backward, and when I lived in Mississippi found out they think people in Arkansas are stupid and backwards. SURPRISE, the stupids and bigots are everywhere! There was no such newsflash on a recent post about a racist bomber going to court in Massachusetts.

[boston bean]

39. you left off the most bigoted saying on DU "your pet issue".

your pet issue is a divisive term, one that separates one group from another.

It intimates my issues are more important than yours and you need to take a step back and put your issue on the back burner, when we are talking about HUMAN RIGHTS!

FFS how anyone cannot see that it is a bigoted statement is beyond me.

It's not just a disagreement. It is telling someone that their human rights are just some little thing we might have time to get around to, let's do something bigger and better first. Well there is nothing bigger and better than equal rights. And most of the time "pet issue" is used the quell criticism when someone's rights are being attacked using the term as an excuse for bigoted actions and policy. You cannot separate the term from the context of where it is being used. When rights are being attacked and someone poo poo's it and the other person personally, it is a thinly veiled bigotry.

[Bragi]

44. Being dismissive is different than being bigoted /nt

[boston bean]

47. re-read. It's not just dismissive, it divides, says to someone too bad for your

issue, ours is more important, when the argument is about human rights.

it's bigoted no two ways around it. And if you use it, I suggest you re-think using it.

[Bragi]

49. Which human rights do you mean?

For example, "freedom of speech" is deemed to be a human right for all under the UN Charter of Human Rights.

If I disagree with you (say) as to the limits of "freedom of speech", if I say your argument is stupid and should be dismissed, I may be right or wrong, I may be offensive or not, but this has nothing to do with bigotry as I'm not arguing against the rights of any particular group.

My point being simply that we need to take care in defining matters precisely if we are going to come up with some general advice on what is and is not bigotry.

[ThomCat]

48. No, that's usually not true.

When someone dismisses as issue entirely because it is supposedly a "pet issue" for someone else or a group of "other people" that is almost always a clear sign of prejudice.

It's a sign that you think of an "us vs them" division with you on one side and that other person, or people, on the other side.

You can't dismiss "their" issue without putting that person is a group that is not part of "us" anymore. Once you do that, that other person is going to be something different, something less, and that person's issues are going to be different and less important in your eyes.

You might not see it as important. But that's the whole point. That's where the prejudice sneaks in.

[Bragi]

53. I think you are conflating things

If you and I disagree on, say, climate change, then me being dismissive of your arguments, and even being offensive and dismissive towards to you, may create an "us" versus "them" dynamic, but it does NOT indicate that I am a bigot against any ethnic, religious, racial or other group to which you or I may belong. Being dismissive is categorically NOT the same as bigotry.

[boston bean]

54. the argument is over bigoted policies and agenda's.

[Dappleganger]

42. When I objected to a person's bigoted statement about a certain republican

being so ugly and homophobic that he *must* be gay, I was immediately put down by multiple posters for being too sensitive and ridiculous.

Hey, I am white and straight and saw right through that crap as plain as day. Can't imagine how much more offensive it would be to the gay community. It was surprising that people defended the op so much--even if it was a slam against Santorum it was also a slam against the LGBT community in the same breath.

But then again, there are many things which happen here which cross that line regularly and are defended.

[ThomCat]

50. That crap about making every hated person gay

really gets old very fast. x(

Every time threads like that come up, there are a chorus of posts jumping in and offering calls for every hated republican being a closeted gay person.

Every right-wing bigot is said to be gay or lesbian but in the closet. As if no straight person has Ever been homophobic.

Conveniently, that displaces the blame in their eyes back into our community so that many straight people don't need to feel any responsible for homophobia, and don't need to feel as if they should join in and do anything about it.

We have many straight allies, and we love them dearly, but the people who pull crap like this are not among them.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jberryhill]

56. "what we believe constitutes bigotry and thus draw a line in the sand"

Yeah, defining bigotry as the impulse to "draw a line in the sand" is one way to look at it.