Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Talfryn]

Since I stirred it up semi accidentally and because it's a good topic, let's have a less OT discussion on this one.

Personally I think action is really important and am uncomfortable with linking things that happen within the head, and to some (lesser) extent in speech, to action upon those things.

Wanting to slap the asshole who cut you off, is a character trait, potentially a flaw (I reaaally love the "Is this behavior causing issues in your daily life" criterion.) but it's not in any way comparable to assault.

This also gets into aiding/abetting /badness/ which is admittedly a weird line in the sand.

If everyone could abide by the rules of our lord and Toad and generally be respectful to others, that'd be awesome. Cheers.

DISCLAIMER: OP is a socially liberal American who freely admits to having bigoted thoughts towards some groups, and also admits this isn't really awesome or a good thing. Also has fairly serious conversations on whether democracy is worthwhile.

[Neonivek]

You can't help the way you feel and think.

You might as well consider someone bad just for being human.

[Caz]

If you keep the thoughts to yourself, I'd say it's fine. Once you start voicing those thoughts to other people however I'd consider it more of an 'act' and a 'thought'.

This also isn't counting that thoughts can colour your actions in more ways than you realise, subconsciously.

[Henny]

"Whatever words we utter should be chosen with care for people will hear them and be influenced by them for good or ill." - Buddha

[i2amroy]

I'd say that anything bigoted means that at some level you are going against something, "because reasons" rather than because of any form of logical reasoning, and as such, yes, it would be inherently bad in a sense. Regardless of that fact it is still part of the progression to eventually becoming a person who doesn't have prejudices:
bigot in action/word/thought->bigot in word/thought->bigot in thought->not bigot

The basic idea is that while being a bigot in thought doesn't actually cause harm to other people, it still would make it easier for you to slip up and accidentally do so, and it still colors your thoughts to some extent, even if it's only a small one. So IMO it's more in the realm of a bad habit to break than in the one of "No, this is horrible, you have to stop immediately" type stuff.

[Orange Wizard]

I'm going to say yes. Hating someone is always bad, regardless of what you do as a result.

[Talfryn]

I'm going to say yes. Hating someone is always bad, regardless of what you do as a result.

I actually 90% agree with that, but then I get stuck on the list of self harmful things we let adults do because they're capable of making their own decisions, and then I start to think that hate without action probably isn't worse than death by cigarette.

[Loud Whispers]

Yes, I agree that bigoted thought without action is inherently bad. You should be flagellating yourself right now for your thought crime, you bigot you.

[Talfryn]

Yes, I agree that bigoted thought without action is inherently bad. You should be flagellating yourself right now for your thought crime, you bigot you.

Must resist the urge to make this smutty.

[Flying Dice]

I'm going to say yes. Hating someone is always bad, regardless of what you do as a result.

That's not the question, though. Relevant.

Not to say it's good, but it's pretty fundamentally human. Frankly, if it doesn't adversely affect anyones' life, who cares? Sure, someone who thinks in those terms might be distasteful, but if they don't let their bigoted thoughts affect how they act, meh.

[Frumple]

I think the question I'd ask is if bigoted thought without action is possible. I guess it is conceptually, but I've personally never met a bigot that didn't let their beliefs influence their actions.

... and I've kinda' met a lot of bigots, unfortunately. Some of them otherwise fairly decent people. Some of them even on fairly good terms and magnanimous towards those they're bigoted against. But it still shines through. Still influences how they act towards people, both those they are and, to some degree more importantly, those they aren't bigoted towards.

Maybe bigoted thought isn't inherently bad when it doesn't lead to action, I've just never actually seen that scenario in multiple decades and hundreds upon hundreds of case studies. Seems like it's not something you really want to risk.

[pisskop]

hmmm.  No thought can be 'bad'.  Wasteful, unproductive, against the idea of society or whatever, sure.  If its 'bad' then people will seek to control or eliminate it.  What do you mean by bigoted?  While not as bad as others, Ive heard it used to mean alot of contextual things to suit a person's wishes.

But by default, that's trying to tell me thinking criticism against the king is a crime.

[i2amroy]

hmmm.  No thought can be 'bad'.  If its 'bad' then people will seek to control or eliminate it.  What do you mean by bigoted?  While not as bad as others, Ive heard it used to mean alot of contextual things to suit a person's wishes.

But by default, that's trying to tell me thinking criticism against the king is a crime.

I'd say that while you couldn't really say thought like that is "bad", you could certainly call it "flawed". This depends on the exact definition of bigoted we are using here, which could make a big difference, but from what I've heard the term generally means that at some level your thought doesn't have a valid reason behind it, it's just that way because it is. So while thinking criticism about the king wouldn't be "flawed" if it was because he had your family murdered, thinking criticism about the king "because he is the king", would be flawed (regardless of how good or bad he actually was).

[pisskop]

I'd say that while you couldn't really say thought like that is "bad", you could certainly call it "flawed". This depends on the exact definition of bigoted we are using here, which could make a big difference, but from what I've heard the term generally means that at some level your thought doesn't have a valid reason behind it, it's just that way because it is. So while thinking criticism about the king wouldn't be "flawed" if it was because he had your family murdered, thinking criticism about the king "because he is the king", would be flawed (regardless of how good or bad he actually was).

Okay, so negative conceptions of something without a 'valid' reason?  I can deal with that, and its something I can work with.  I'd argue that it isn't.  We have those who are bigoted, with reasons so weak and abstract for downplaying another that they can't coherently convey them, and then we'd have people playing averages, tendencies, and intuition (unconscious recognition of marker).  You'd have cops, profilers, and others who have to operate without (all the) facts in any given situation.  There's a lot more going on than simply bigot=bad there, although we see some crossover and the sensitivity of the subject is high.

Stereotypes are simply preconceived notions, sometimes of previous experience.  I don't really see them as all bad, because they represent something we do every day.  Its how we organize our mind, via compounded 'yes' 'no' categorizations.  When applied to say, companies and foods its perfectly justified.

[i2amroy]

I'd agree with you that stereotypes aren't necessarily a bad thing (such as being used in profiling, etc. when it is backed up by data). I'd say that the problem is more specifically (and this sounds a lot like moving the goalpost, but that's not the intention, it's supposed to be a clarification of my definition of "bigoted") those people or thoughts that contain negative conceptions that have been shown to be not valid or changed over the years. The problem isn't with things like slight racial profiling used by people like police officers, it's the fact that many of said stereotypes lag behind the current period or are being shown to be untrue. (No offense meant to Asian people here, I'm just picking your racial group arbitrarily as an example) If you had data that showed that people with Asian heritage were significantly more likely to commit arson then I'd be fine with that stereotype. However if you held onto that stereotype despite the fact that said study was 30 years old and invalid in the current culture, simply because it was true at some point, then I would disapprove of it.