Working Definition of Bigotry

Didymus · **Posted:** Sun Apr 22, 2007 1:58 am

Because there have been concerns expressed about differing opinions, I feel it necessary that we establish a working definition of the term Bigotry. This is particularly useful here, I believe, because it would be very easy for people of differing opinions on certain subjects to overreact to one another, hindering the communication and discussion process.

Here is my working definition of bigotry:

straw man arguments

ad hominem arguments

Attempting to correct an opinion with available facts, citations, sound arguments, leading questions, and other means that encourage civil discussion are generally accepted, allowed, and in fact encouraged.

Oh, and expressing offense at an idea or at a person's behavior I do not feel falls into the same category as hostility. Saying, "I am offended by that," is not the same as saying, "Your an idiot and a jerkface."

Having different opinions is okay: being hostile to someone because they are different is not.

As a moderator, this is the definition I use when addressing Rule #2 issues and enforcement.

Feel free to discuss this.

P. S. I stickied this because I feel it is important that people know by what standards I enforce Rule #2.

PianoManGidley · **Posted:** Sun Apr 22, 2007 2:23 am

Totally agree. There are plenty of other logical fallacies common in debates than the ones you posted here, though I think the two you mentioned are the most commonly applied versions of bigotry (if there are any others at all).

More than that, though, this sort of begs the question: How tolerant are we? What lengths are we willing to go? Should those who express a desire for tolerance be tolerant even insofar as to tolerate the expressions of opinions of others who are markedly intolerant? Would it be hypocritical for a person who advocate total tolerance to deny the speech of those who are intolerant? I think this issue was best answered by Karl Popper, in "The Open Society and Its Enemies":

Karl Popper wrote:

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 most 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.

Didymus · **Posted:** Sun Apr 22, 2007 2:44 am

Well, at least as far as Forum behavior goes, I'd say, let those who choose to act like jerks do so to their own detriment. If they refuse to listen or consider sound arguments contrary to their opinions, then let them make fools of themselves: us Mods and Admins will deal with them. But when people end up responding in the same manner - i.e., by flaming, or even baiting them - then it makes it very difficult for us to do our part.

Oh, and expressing offense at an idea or at a person's behavior I do not feel falls into the same category as hostility. Saying, "I am offended by that," is not the same as saying, "Your an idiot and a jerkface." (I'm going to add that).

What's Her Face · **Posted:** Mon Apr 23, 2007 6:54 pm

But we can still make fun of Scientologists, right?

Didymus · **Posted:** Mon Apr 23, 2007 7:03 pm

As long as it's done in a way to promote fun and not hatred.

What's Her Face · **Posted:** Mon Apr 23, 2007 7:07 pm

Sure. Making fun of Scientologists is always fun.

Nah, nah, won't be none of that.

IantheGecko · **Posted:** Mon Apr 23, 2007 11:40 pm

Does furry fall under interests?

bwave · **Posted:** Mon Apr 23, 2007 11:51 pm

IantheGecko wrote:

Does furry fall under interests?

It doesnt seem like the kinda stuff that would come up in R&P.

Didymus · **Posted:** Mon Apr 23, 2007 11:59 pm

Interests would include things like Anime, Bonus Stage, video games, Star Wars, Star Trek, etc. Furries would fall under that category.

However, please bear in mind, that if someone continuously expresses interest in something that didn't fit the conversations going on, it could fall under Rule 3. For example, if someone kept going "Hilary Duff!" or "Chaos Emeralds!" every other post.

IantheGecko · **Posted:** Tue Apr 24, 2007 12:04 am

Right, I understand.

Didymus · **Posted:** Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:30 am

I suppose it would be okay to poke fun at Celine Dion herself.

Mr. Sparkle · **Posted:** Tue Apr 24, 2007 5:00 am

Well, I'm offended.

And can't Celine Dion be interested in herself?

Didymus · **Posted:** Tue Apr 24, 2007 5:05 am

Awww, is poor little Mr. Sparkle a Celine Dion fan? I sowwy! I'll never call Celine Dion 2-bit gutter trash again.

furrykef · **Posted:** Tue Apr 24, 2007 11:00 pm

I'm all for making fun of furries.

IantheGecko · **Posted:** Tue Apr 24, 2007 11:20 pm

You're the one with "furry" in your name, bub.

furrykef · **Posted:** Tue Apr 24, 2007 11:27 pm

I know! So I have insider knowledge that we're all a bunch of total freaks!

IantheGecko · **Posted:** Tue Apr 24, 2007 11:30 pm

2 beats you hands-down in that regard.

Didymus · **Posted:** Tue Apr 24, 2007 11:31 pm

Oh, yeah? Well YIFF IN H...never mind.

MC Otaku · **Posted:** Wed Apr 25, 2007 3:17 pm

Bigotry=someone else's opinion.

MC Otaku · **Posted:** Wed Apr 25, 2007 5:39 pm

Yeltensic wrote:

Quote:

Bigotry=someone else's opinion.

I disagree. Bigot!

LOL!

sam3611 · **Joined:** Mon Sep 05, 2005 3:11 pm **Posts:** 20

Can we make fun of people who oppose our ultimate rule of the world?

Mr. Sparkle · **Posted:** Sat May 12, 2007 6:57 pm

sam3611 wrote:

Can we make fun of people who oppose our ultimate rule of the world?

*is offended*

Einoo T. Spork · **Posted:** Sat May 12, 2007 11:22 pm

Mr. Sparkle wrote:

sam3611 wrote:

Can we make fun of people who oppose our ultimate rule of the world?

*is offended*

*is offended at Mr. Sparkle's offense*

Mr. Sparkle · **Posted:** Sun May 13, 2007 1:12 am

Einoo T. Spork wrote:

Mr. Sparkle wrote:

sam3611 wrote:

Can we make fun of people who oppose our ultimate rule of the world?

*is offended*

*is offended at Mr. Sparkle's offense*

BIGOTS.

ALL BIGOTS.

Einoo T. Spork · **Posted:** Sun May 13, 2007 1:24 am

Mr. Sparkle wrote:

Einoo T. Spork wrote:

Mr. Sparkle wrote:

sam3611 wrote:

Can we make fun of people who oppose our ultimate rule of the world?

*is offended*

*is offended at Mr. Sparkle's offense*

BIGOTS.

ALL BIGOTS.

O SH-

TO THE BIGOTMOBILE!!!

The Snork · **Posted:** Sun May 13, 2007 1:50 am

Einoo T. Spork wrote:

O SH-

TO THE BIGOTMOBILE!!!

O SH- NOT ENOUGH ROOM

Didymus · **Posted:** Sun May 13, 2007 2:01 am

Okay, guys. Take it to Random.

Einoo T. Spork · **Posted:** Sun May 13, 2007 2:04 am

Didymus wrote:

Okay, guys. Take it to Random.

I was expecting you to lock the thread, so this is actually a pretty positive reaction. Yeah, okay. We'll leave. We'll be good. Don't hurt me. D=

homerstarrun70fireboy · **Joined:** Sun Feb 25, 2007 3:10 am **Posts:** 335

As if he's going to listen to your word alone to lock it.

Didymus · **Posted:** Sun May 13, 2007 6:03 am

Actually, I probably will clean up this thread later. It wasn't intended to start a discussion about bigotry, so much as to clearly define how Rule #2 was going to be enforced around here, especially in this particular board. The simple truth is, you will encounter opinions which you won't like, some of which you will find offensive. But there's a difference between disagreeing with someone and being hostile toward them. Disagreements are okay; open hostility is not.

Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

Working Definition of Bigotry

Who is online