These are the kinds of commentary that I know I should give real thought to. Although Michael seems to insult me in one item [see clarification d"oh below], he follows it with a smiley emoticon, so I know it is 'banter.'
If I weren't a simple child like Pollyanna, I'd say that insults choke discussion. But that is for another day and another dollar. Some things just need to sink in.
First, as a boring background, Adam teased this out of me ...
On 3/21/2016 at 7:11 PM, william.scherk said:
As simply as I can put it, bigotry means an intolerance of other people's opinions, and an obstinate refusal to entertain information that tends to contradict one's opinions. At an extreme and as a persistent habit of mind.
Obstinate intolerance of The Other. Obstinate 'dark' emotions dominate reason.
A mind closed to rational argument
A tendency to let prejudice guide decisions
Refusal to entertain the notion that one might be prejudiced in some matter.
I try to pay my rent here,. Thanks for the follow-up, Adam.
MIchael took a bit from this and answered it in his inimitable way. But let's just say he didn't quote it, since you just read the words anyway, and I cannot be bothered to finick with the quoating software for the moment.
On 3/21/2016 at 8:01 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
In other words, when the scientific community demonizes specific scientists because their climate change findings and conclusions do not fit the outcomes the community spokespeople expect, you thus consider the scientific community to be bigoted?
That seems to fit your condition: "... obstinate refusal to entertain information that tends to contradict one's opinions."
That seems to fit your condition ... and here I though I was one of the guys that Rock!
On 3/21/2016 at 8:03 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
Apropos, re morality and bigotry and Rand.
She considered the choice to use reason to be a moral issue.
Hmmm. Deep thoughts.
Here was a bit more of my thoughts on defining bigotry.
On 3/21/2016 at 6:47 PM, william.scherk said:
I'd better make sure I have been consistent in my own usage! But I might as well paste in a couple of lines from an earlier bout of anger:
Now I and half my staff will go consult the dictionaries, and try to avoid the recursion that Daniel Barnes warned us against. Bottom line -- I appreciate bigotry as a habit of mind, a misplaced insistence on rectitude, an obstinate holding of one's opinions as being beyond doubt or useful criticism. It can be that a bigoted thinker in one aspect of life is a much more rational actor in others. I can think of some hockey fans, for example. I can also think of crowds of left-ish types of particular bigotry: the demonizing of "The Right" as if it were just an undifferentiated mass of You People. This is most often seen when a bigoted speaker dismisses as one of Those People as beyond the pale, because of his or her membership of a group. (so, of course, in my normal real life I have many 'discussions' with folks who hold bigoted views, often shallowly-warranted views -- and the key test for me is whether or not they allow in new information contra their opinion. If they do, the bigotry was only apparent in a forceful opinion. The old saw about not attributing to malice that which belongs to ignorance or error comes to mind ...)
How about you, Adam? What is your definition or working set of attributes of bigotry, bigot, a bigoted opinion?
And I kind of expect half the front-porch to weigh in, but it is Sunday, a slow day at the ranch, and this definitional invitation will soon be buried under fresh hoopla.
On 3/20/2016 at 9:00 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
Tony always triggers thought.
On 3/20/2016 at 9:04 AM, anthony said:
There's an interesting one, did DT find his followers, or did his 'followers' find a DT? My impression of the extremely mixed bag who support Drumpf is of a previously unenfranchised, unknown and uncared about 'group' who in fact fitted no known groups. I believe they are the "XXX Like Me" individuals from all walks of life who have grown up watching the busybodies from the Left and the Right, equally, running things and moralizing others - and have finally said: enough! There are the many individualists without the power of a clear tribal identity - deemed essential in collectivist times - with some ' fellow travellers' of an objectionable identity nobody else rightfully wants to belong to them. Drumpf soon will have to work out who are his supporters and why, and cut his cloth accordingly - and so unite them and draw others from both parties.
This is what started it all off, with Michael answering the question of Categories. And so, I can answer -- on list -- the final set of questions, bolded for your reading pleasure.
On 3/19/2016 at 10:56 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
Sure. Anti-Drumpf people. Those against Drumpf. And so on. I don't demonize someone who criticizes Drumpf just for criticizing him. There are lots of people who can't stand Drumpf as is their right. And some of them make great points.
But take a look at some of the things Carly said about Drumpf back then. According to her, Drumpf was barely a businessman.
You might find that level of discourse OK, rational and objective, but I do not. And I say so.
In fact, this is a mini-example of why Drumpf is killing it with voters. They have kept saying what they wanted for years and years and decades. And those with public voices and power have ignored them except at voting time.
Here's a quick example. I am saying Drumpf has strong productive achievements and that people the world over admire them. The people who criticize Drumpf keep ignoring this. But it's real and it's not going away this time just because it gets ignored. And when people like Carly treat his achievements without acknowledgment and with disdain, she pays a price. She can criticize him, but she has to criticize something real if she wants to be taken seriously.
This is not demonizing her. I'm merely reporting that voters are telling her they will not be blown off again. She blew them off, so they blew her off.
Believe me, the establishment Republicrats knew exactly what I am talking about when they punked Carly off.
btw - Cruz is suffering from this. He says Drumpf supports Obamacare, that Drumpf funded the Gang of Eight and stuff like that. He ignores what is really going on, isolates a detail, throws the spotlight on it, and attributes it with an unreal intent. Many, many people are sick of this kind of discourse. Their votes are proving it.
Those who call Drumpf a bigot are making the same error. Believe me, that bigot charge will not take with Drumpf except among Drumpf haters. If you don't believe me, just watch. My point is that this growing mass of Drumpf supporters is not made up of bigots (as those making the charge eventually conclude). The truth is these people are no longer listening to those who yell, "Bigot!" Why? Because those who yell it are doing it for manipulation, not for identifying any fact.
How many times and how many people have to appear on air saying they have known Drumpf for years and he is no bigot? How many times do people have to point to Drumpf's businesses and show that no bigotry is to be found? How many people from all minority classes have to come out in support of Drumpf and say he is no bigot? The yellers ignore this. The people are now saying they will not.
Now I have a question for you. Is there any category of Drumpf supporter you can imagine where they are not mentally or morally suboptimal in some manner? Among all the many theories out there from Drumpf critics about what moves Drumpf supporters, I have yet to see one. It's not disagreement. It's failure to even consider the possibility that Drumpf supporters have correct functioning brains.
Does that attribution of inherent inferiority count as demonization to you?