Print

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

[Criptfeind]

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.

How would you know? Unless you're secretly a mindreader.

Might as well say a person's suicidal because for a moment they had an urge to jump off a cliff.

No, but you might call that thought itself suicidal though, wouldn't you?

"Are thoughts about killing yourself inherently suicidal?"

[Levi]

No such thing as thought-crime. As long as your actions are good, then you can think whatever sick stuff you want.   

[LordBucket]

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.

How certain are you of that? It's possible to find very politically incorrect statistics on sites like webmd, the Center for Disease Control and the Bureau of Justice.

[Glowcat]

Bigotry is "bad" on a personal level when it's accepted by the person thinking it, since it'll often lead to negative action (which does include speech, and how one uses one's speech, in my mind).

However without any social impact, especially social impact amplified by existing structures, it's contained and mostly harmless. Without any power backing the bigotry it becomes reduced to any kind of personal spat, isolated to that particular individual, rather than something that might permeate and cause suffering on a more persistent level.

[i2amroy]

If it's been proven by scientific, unbiased (unbiased is the key thing here) study to be a significant factor, then I don't care how politically incorrect it is, it's still true. It's technically politically incorrect for police to profile known felons and rapists as a group more likely to commit crimes, ("Are you saying that you are negatively stereotyping me because I'm a known rapist?") but that doesn't make the fact that they are indeed, more likely to commit crimes any less true, nor does it make their profiling "flawed" in any way. There is logically a proven reason why police profile them that way, and it's logically consistent with itself. (Now if a known felon showed themselves to have moved completely beyond their crime and reformed, and you still held them to the stereotype, that would be "flawed", because you have direct data that contradicts what the stereotype states for that particular person).

[LordBucket]

Is bigoted thought without action inherently bad?

I'm going to take an unusual position on this one. I'm going to say that bigotry without action is not bad, but it might be silly. Because, if you dislike someone or something, why would you not act it?

But that requires context.

Spoiler: long boring comment on definitions (click to show/hide)

Unfortunately, checking several online dictionaries for the word "bigotry" they all seem to disagree with each other.  So it's probable that many people participating this thread are thinking different things. Also unfortunately, some of the definitions I find are vastly different from each other.

For example, according to wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry

"Bigotry is a state of mind where a person strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc"

First problem with that is that if "unfairly" is part of the definition, then by definition bigotry is unfair. So by definition anyone who fairly dislikes someone or something is not a bigot. Which introduces a complete mess with the question of "what qualifies as fair?" Second problem is that some definitions, like this one:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigotry

"stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own."

...doesn't agree with common use at all. For example, according to the above, a person who intensely hates Italians is not a bigot, because Italian are not a creed, belief or opinions. And while I think that definition more closely matches older "popular" usages of the word, it's probably not what anyone in this thread actually means.

So for clarity, I'm going to provide my own definition that I think is reasonably close to what most of us here probably mean:

bigotry
"dislike for a group of persons"

That might not be the best definition in the world, but given this from the OP:

American who freely admits to having bigoted thoughts towards some groups

That's what we're actually talking about, right?

Ok. Here's my take on it: there's nothing wrong with preference. Liking and disliking things isn't bad. I like chocolate. I don't like canned whipped cream. There's nothing wrong with that. And if I act on those preferences by for example, eating chocolate and not spraying canned whipped cream on it....that's ok. And it would be fairly dumb to put the canned whipped cream on my cake anyway even though I don't like it, right? I'm acting on my preference by avoiding the thing I dislike. That's reasonable.

I suggest that it's still reasonable when applied to people as well. For example, I'm not particularly attracted to fat girls. Or for that matter, guys. I don't find men sexually attractive. Can everyone agree that it would be absolutely ridiculous for me, being not attracted to men, to choose to not act on that preference and therefore insist on pursuing men romantically even though I don't like them? I mean, that would be obviously dumb, right? But by not asking guys out on dates, I'm acting on preference. Is that wrong?

Of course not.

It's ok to have preference. It's ok to act on that preference. It's kind of silly to not act on preference. It's only when you go out and start being mean to people that it's a problem. For example, let's say you're a girl who dislikes short guys. It's reasonable to act on that preference by not dating them. But if you throw oranges at them and call them names when you drive past them...that's acting on it in a way that's not ok.

It's ok to dislike a group of people. Acting on it is ok too. It's how you act on it that matters.

[i2amroy]

I'd agree with you under that definition, though I'm not sure that I agree with your definition of the word itself.

Spoiler: My personal definition (click to show/hide)

Bigot: Someone who either:
A) Dislikes a group of people without evidence (be it scientific or otherwise) or with dated/irrelevant evidence
or
B) Continues to hold onto dislikes of a person or group of people despite being shown that their reasons are false

I think that that captures the "stubborn" and "unfairly" parts of the definitions that you listed a bit better than just ignoring them completely.

[Loud Whispers]

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.

• I hate everyone who has the valley girl accent who imports the worst fucking thing about California into the rest of the world.
• I hate everyone who is happy all day every day with a smug smile in this grim paradise of rain and postmodern architecture.
• I hate everyone who is cheerful and dapper about being moral causes they have no understanding of.

I'm friends with two men who both have valley girl accents, are vegans who drink fair trade soy lattes, end every sentence with 'peace and love' or 'mwa,' have adamant opinions on topics they've never researched and are eternally happy or tired. They are living caricatures of all my prejudices, so far I've refrained from decapitating them.

[smeeprocket]

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.

stereotypes being used in profiling is the very example of bad. It is part of a larger piece that leads up to the wholsesale slaughter of African Americans by the police. Because black people are apparently all criminals. What stereotype could they possibly replace the current one that would tell them that someone is or is not a criminal without unfairly marking a load of innocent people and making their lives hell?

To answer the OP:

Bigoted thought is inevitable, I think, we pass judgement on an individual within 10 sec of seeing them. However, it's recognizing those thoughts and eliminating them that makes it not an inherently bad thing. If you let them change your actions or behavior (and if you believe them, they will) that is the part that is bad.

i2amroy: are you saying that profiling black people as criminals is the same as doing it to felons and rapists? Because that... no.

A felon has committed prior crimes, and with our failing penal system, recidivism is high. But having black skin does not equal being a criminal. And pushing that only serves to oppress those you push it on.

An officer's job is to uphold the law, not bully minorities.

[pisskop]

stereotypes being used in profiling is the very example of bad. It is part of a larger piece that leads up to the wholsesale slaughter of African Americans by the police. Because black people are apparently all criminals.

Wha~  Im going to tell you you don't have the science to back . . . that up.  Either sentence 1 or sentence 2.

[Cheeetar]

What claim are you asking to be proved, Pisskop? That racially motivated police brutality is a big problem (in America), or that racist profiling of black people exists and is a problem (in America)?

[smeeprocket]

http://americaswire.org/drupal7/?q=content/profiling-black-males-use-excessive-force-rodney-king-trayvon-martin

http://racism.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1472:constitutional-protection&catid=130&Itemid=241

http://ccj.sagepub.com/content/23/3/276.short

I'm sorry, what was that?

[pisskop]

What claim are you asking to be proved, Pisskop? That racially motivated police brutality is a big problem (in America), or that racist profiling of black people exists and is a problem (in America)?

Nobody is arguing that racial profiling happens, and I'm pretty sure I've made my position on the police power in modern day America clear.
  I'm saying that . . . impassioned cry is not going to be proven.  Would you climb into bed with that language?

[pisskop]

http://americaswire.org/drupal7/?q=content/profiling-black-males-use-excessive-force-rodney-king-trayvon-martin

http://racism.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1472:constitutional-protection&catid=130&Itemid=241

http://ccj.sagepub.com/content/23/3/276.short

I'm sorry, what was that?

Im sorry, are those sites supposed to be unbiased?  You'll have to give me some time to flick through them, but reading the 'articles' section on the right side suggests they are quite agenda laden.

[smeeprocket]

There's no unbiased sources for this issue on either side.

The last one might be what you are looking for though, it links to various studies, iirc.