Bigot? Racist? Something Else?

OK! so good, and now I well remember it. Thanks.

This is a thread about bigotry. The word "Bigot" is right there in the title. We have the this strange tangent.... but this is about bigotry. The controversy on this thread is that I suggested that White people on either side of the political fence were susceptible to bigotry and bias. The rest is just a smokescreen.

Everyone can see how competing political ideologies are "bigoted". Ask an American liberal if Trump supporters are bigoted, or ask a conservative if feminists are bigoted. There is a strange symmetry here. I don't know anything about Sweeden... you will have to ask Saab if there are any competing political ideologies that she considers bigoted.

No one considers the fact that their own political ideologies are equally susceptible to the same bias, assumptions and prejudice. We are all human... that's all I started pointing out in the first few pages of this thread until it got personal.

But in America, at least, the inability to consider other points of view, instead choosing to argue that they are linked to "barbaric" beliefs, is the reason that we have such strong political bubbles.

It is interesting to see the defense mechanisms used to avoid even considering other points of view. People on this thread keep wanting to make any disagreement about FGM, a practice that no one here supports. Glennn et. al. are trying to link me to FGM... but instead of listening to her twist my words to make me support the practice, you could just listen to me directly. I believe that the practice as brutal and cruel and should be banned from society. The fact that anyone deliberately or mistakenly disagrees with me about what my own opinion is is rather funny.

The reason that we are talking about a practice that no one here supports is that it is a smokescreen. It avoids anyone, Glennn and Saab and anyone else from having to discuss the ways that their own points of view are biases (as any human point of view is). They are in effect saying "look over there... someone else is doing something horrible". It's a convenient dodge.

The second defense mechanism.... posting links about off topic songs is amusing. I kind of prefer it, because although it avoids any real discussion... it doesn't involve ad hominem and personal attacks.

You like "other points of view"? Here's one. You've run this thread into the dirt and made the discussion redundant and tedious. Just because some don't want to engage you on your endlessly contentious terms doesn't mean they're defensive. It may just mean they're bored.

back in the day, loved it...sighhhhhhhh

(I meant Rufus, not Max...whoops)

Nonsense Snood. You are taking valuable time to tell me how this discussion is boring you? That doesn't make any sense. There is something else going on.

If you were bored, or you didn't want to engage, you would simply move onto another thread. There are thousands of threads here in which I have taken no part. I am only here because people engaged me. If no one pushed back on my ideas, I would have maybe posted twice and gotten bored myself and moved on. I don't really understand the desire for group think here on a public discussion forum, if you don't want people to express ideas you disagree with than what's the point?

There is a difference between not wanting to participate yourself in a discussion and not wanting a discussion to take place at all. You are obviously bothered that these ideas are being expressed at all.

Not bothered at all, just over it. But you obviously have an inflated view of the importance of your opinions in the scheme of things.

And yet, you are still here not only reading my posts... but responding to them. Thanks for the chuckle.

If you want group think, you should be on Facebook. There you can filter by person, or by ideology, the posts you see. Most people build their own little bubbles seeing only ideas they already hold.

The architecture here allows anyone to post ideas ideas whether you agree with them or not. To me, that is the advantage of a platform like Able2Know.

Yeah, I replied to your posts. While you of course immediately take that as a testament to how fascinating you are, I think it's just bad judgment on my part, thinking that you might say something different than what you've repeated for several pages. But you're right. Ignore it is.

Ditto what Snood said.

You have every right to criticize American culture, and yet, it certainly seems, that you would deny people the right to criticize non-American cultures.

You are only engaged in a double standard when you apply your sense of morality to judgments about Western culture but then argue that others cannot or should not when it comes to foreign cultures.

Everyone has a right to criticize practices they believe to be immoral and I would go further and say that everyone has an obligation to, in some way, see that those practices don't continue. When it comes to practices in foreign cultures, the only acceptable way to affect change is through education and persuasion, because doing so by force tramples the primary right of those who embrace the practice: Liberty.

Having said this, there are hypothetical practices that would test this principle for all of us. An extreme would be the ritual slaughter and cannibalizing of "unfit" infants and the elderly. One can imagine how a given culture could rationalize this practice, but very few people in the West would find it morally acceptable, and I feel certain that there would be public pressure exerted to put an end to it by any means. Whether or not governments bent to that pressure is another story. Slavery is another such practice and I know of no culture in the world who is proudly willing to advertise their embrace of it, because they know how most of the world considers it. Nevertheless, slavery continues in cultures throughout the world.

Within the so-called Western Culture there are differences on what practices are acceptable and what are not. The Death Penalty for example. European nations, by and large, find it to be immoral and unacceptable and do their best, within limits, to oppose our use of it. A prime example is their refusal to extradite someone in their country to the US without assurances that the person won't be executed. Have they stepped over your line? If, as I suspect, you also object to capital punishment, I doubt you will think they have.

When you argue for moral relativism and multi-culturalism and you wish to remain intellectually honest, you don't get to pick and choose the practices you get to condemn.

This is nonsense.

What you are suggesting here is that American conservative don't really care about the victims of genital mutilation they simply wish to use the practice as a means to advance, what you no doubt believe is, their bigotry.

There is nothing wrong with using genital mutilation as an argument against a multi-cultural credo that contends that people, outside of our culture, who choose to receive the benefits of our culture should be allowed to bring with them practices our culture finds immoral.

I don't think anyone is trying to link you to genital mutilation. It is merely an example of a practice (which you yourself find unacceptable) which you would argue that no one outside of the cultures practicing can denounce without some sinister motivation, including bigotry.

Your reflexive charge of bigotry is something I have challenged in the past and I'm going to continue to do so here.

This is my assertion...

It is completely valid for me to criticize my own culture; a culture that I belong to, have a commitment to, have a deep understanding of and a stake in. It is less valid for me to criticize other culture, where I have neither a deep understanding of or stake in.

Of course anyone is free to criticize anything (and I have never said otherwise). I am far more willing to criticize my own culture than I am willing to criticize other cultures, and I am fine with people in other cultures who apply the same rule. When people who have never lived in America, or have any connection to America, criticize Americans... I don't take it very seriously.

I don't see any contradiction.

Exactly. The point is that this is not a liberal viewpoint. It is a rather common conservative viewpoint (I read conservative media). Maybe my wording wasn't very artful (I am a liberal but I did try my best). The point is that the way you view the meaning of FGM is different than those in the liberal political bubble view it.

The liberal equivalent of this statement involves FGM as being an example of the Patriarchy, and they use it as an argument to protect abortion and regulate healthcare.

I don't think you accept the narrative of the Patriarchy, do you?

We have pretty entrenched political bubbles in the US right now. And the bubble you are in dictates the lessons you will learn from FGM, both sides are using the issue... but with very different ends in mind.

I don't exactly know what you are talking about here.

In the initial parts of this thread, I argued that "bigot" is an epithet rather than a measurable quality. If someone calls me a "moron", or an "asshole" or a "bigot", I don't quibble the definition of the word. These are rather generic personal attacks. Maybe there is an objective way to measure bigotry in a person... but generally when someone uses the word to attack someone they aren't thinking about any specific definition.

Maybe in other threads I argued about bigotry. If so, you are free to use this thread against me.

I'm not going to argue what the liberal view of this practice is because it is immaterial. Political operatives of either side may use the practice to advance their message, but I firmly believe most liberals and conservatives simply find it immoral. You are trying to impose a level of objection that is above the personal on the persons who fundamentally object.



Of course not, but again you are trying to impute a political tactic to all individuals.



Nonsense. I know of no one, liberal or conservative, whose opinion of FGM is based on a political end. I'm sure there are soulless partisans out there who might, but they are a tiny minority. It would appear that I have more faith in liberals than you do.

I just thumbed you back up (for the record, I haven't down thumbed anyone on this thread).



This made me chuckle (and it goes along with the theme of my willingness to criticize my own ).

I do not feel like reading all of pages again, but as far as I remember noone has criticized Americans.
I think the majority here either live/have lived/or have connections to USA.
Even if someone never had been to USA I think they had the right to be critical to the politics - just like Americans have the right to be critical to the politics in other countries.

As a matter of fact there are people who never went to a foreign country, but
are very interested and read books, litteratur from there, learn to cook their food, study their art.
These people know much more than most turist who just travel for a few days
to a country and just see the sights which you are supposed to see.

Believe it or not, Saab, this wasn't about you. Not even a little bit. The quote in question was in response to Finn. The discussion was why I am more willing to criticize American culture than the cultures of other people.

Most of my understanding of Swedish culture came from a Muppet Actually there are a few ways that Swedish culture impacts Americans. We hear about the Swedish model in debates about prostitution, but our debates are American debates, we don't really understand how Swedes feel about the issue.