Bigotry, liberalism, conservatism, and identity

[dogman6126]

So, I was reading this article and thought it had some very interesting points, and wanted to discuss with some people.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/12/conservatism-without-bigotry/544128/

I have been noticing a difference in the way different people understand bigotry, but have never been able to explain it in great detail. To explain, understand I grew up in a very rural area of america, which was highly conservative. Since I went to college, I have been in highly liberal environments. This has allowed me to see most sides of the political spectrum. Further, I have never been particularly invested in politics. This combination has allowed me to be charitable to both sides of the liberal-conservative debates. One thing I have been interested in is the rampant disagreement, misinformation, and bias across both sides. I actually see relatively little differences between the two groups, but it seems like very few people agree with me on this. There is so much passion and hatred when people invest their political leanings into their identity that this area becomes difficult to have more fundamental discussions.

For example, I've noticed people from these different backgrounds describe bigotry in different ways, but I never had a good reason why. I thought this article had a great diagnosis of the difference (though I think it is only a tendency, not causal). However, I know I'm not familiar enough with the more extreme conservative or liberal positions to see how they would handle this article. I'd love to hear some arguments for and against this understanding of bigotry and how it differs between conservative and liberal ideologies.

I'll also be happy if this thread drifts into other understandings of identity around liberal and conservative ideologies.

 

[Eventhorizon]

big·ot·ry
ˈbiɡətrē/
noun

1. intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

To this I say opinion is just that. My opinion is that Scotch is good. Another may disagree and I can certainly live with that.
However when we start talking of things that actually effect the lives of everyone, as an example money is being taken out of my pay check to pay for others health care, I have an intolerance to those who ignore facts and say everyone should embrace nationalized health care no questions asked. That is an opinion but one I will not tolerate. Questions should be asked and direct answers given. In this scenario someone could technically call me a bigot and be correct in accordance to the definition. Someone might also have the opinion every citizen when they reach the age of 30 should be put to death. I would be intolerant of that opinion as well and also correctly be called a bigot for it.

 

[dogman6126]

big·ot·ry
ˈbiɡətrē/
noun

1. intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

To this I say opinion is just that. My opinion is that Scotch is good. Another may disagree and I can certainly live with that.
However when we start talking of things that actually effect the lives of everyone, as an example money is being taken out of my pay check to pay for others health care, I have an intolerance to those who ignore facts and say everyone should embrace nationalized health care no questions asked. That is an opinion but one I will not tolerate. Questions should be asked and direct answers given. In this scenario someone could technically call me a bigot and be correct in accordance to the definition. Someone might also have the opinion every citizen when they reach the age of 30 should be put to death. I would be intolerant of that opinion as well and also correctly be called a bigot for it.

I see what you are getting at here, but this article is less interested in a definition of bigotry than it is the consequences of that definition as applied in different ideologies. It seems as though conservatives apply this definition differently than liberals such that each would label different things as bigoted. Sure, you can push this stand alone definition in the way you've suggested, but that's not quite the pattern we see when talking to people who label things as bigoted.

 

[Eventhorizon]

No and it wouldn't be. People quite honestly change the definition to suit their needs and agenda. When we as critical thinkers go back though and attempt to apply their definition to the actual definition, it all falls apart. I can call you what I like, unless people think for themselves and research they may be prone to believe what they are told without well...proof or fact.
This probably seems like an obvious conclusion and yet so many people are subject to this exact thing. IMO anyway.

 

[dogman6126]

No and it wouldn't be. People quite honestly change the definition to suit their needs and agenda. When we as critical thinkers go back though and attempt to apply their definition to the actual definition, it all falls apart. I can call you what I like, unless people think for themselves and research they may be prone to believe what they are told without well...proof or fact.
This probably seems like an obvious conclusion and yet so many people are subject to this exact thing. IMO anyway.

This article isn't creating definitions to suit some needs. Rather, it's making an observational claim, one which I'm sympathetic too. I was wondering if others share this intuition, and what those that don't have to say about it.

Perhaps it would help if I quoted sections of the article to outline what I'm asking. From the article:

Conservatives tend to define it [bigotry] in terms of intention: You’re guilty of bigotry if you’re trying to harm people because of their race, gender, or the like. Liberals are more likely to define it in terms of impact: You’re guilty if your actions disadvantage an already disadvantaged group, irrespective of your motives.

This explanation of a difference in understanding has a lot of predictive power to explain many interactions I've encountered. The article goes on to outline examples of what this means:

You may genuinely believe that Georgia can’t afford to expand Medicaid [a non-racist position by conservative standards]. But given that the Georgians affected by this decision are disproportionately poor people of color—and that they lack coverage in large measure because they are poor people of color—your opposition to expanding Medicaid perpetuates a history of state-sponsored bigotry [a racist position by liberal standards].

The article goes on to talk about a number of consequences from these positions, a further diagnosis of the rampant contempt across party lines as well as propose solutions to the disagreement.

Here are some specific questions I have:
1) Have others recognized this sort of pattern?
2) How reasonable are these differences of definition?
3) Which definition is more rational?
4) Does the rationality of these definitions depend on the consequences, and if so, how?
5) Did anyone notice errors in this writer's argumentation method?

 

[Stu]

I still have yet to read the article but I do believe that most bigots do not think themselves bigoted.

 

[Pin]

I think the issue with many people, liberals and conservatives, is that their political leaning is their identity. It's so easy to label oneself a liberal or a conservative (join an ideological team) without achieving anything notable in life.

Being a conservative or a liberal isn't an achievement.

Many people (liberals and conservatives alike) are so wrapped up in political bullshit because they're lazy, want a club to join, and don't have the work ethic and IQ necessary to join a group of distinction (e.g Navy Seals, Microsoft Board of Directors, NASA Astronaut Corps, etc).

 

[Eventhorizon]

I think the issue with many people, liberals and conservatives, is that their political leaning is their identity. It's so easy to label oneself a liberal or a conservative (join an ideological team) without achieving anything notable in life.

Being a conservative or a liberal isn't an achievement.

Many people (liberals and conservatives alike) are so wrapped up in political bullshit because they're lazy, want a club to join, and don't have the work ethic and IQ necessary to join a group of distinction (e.g Navy Seals, Microsoft Board of Directors, NASA Astronaut Corps, etc).

No. Some people are Democrats because it's like a football team to them. Their family is Democrat so they are to. Never applying a thought process to it.
You have to be intelligent and be able to think for yourself to be anything other than a Democrat.

 

[Pin]

No. Some people are Democrats because it's like a football team to them. Their family is Democrat so they are to. Never applying a thought process to it.
You have to be intelligent and be able to think for yourself to be anything other than a Democrat.

Liberal or Conservative, it doesn't matter what someone's political opinions are if they haven't accomplished jack-shit in life.

 

[Eventhorizon]

Liberal or Conservative, it doesn't matter what someone's political opinions are if they haven't accomplished jack-shit in life.

Really? Because when you vote...even though it's really messed up with illegals etc it does matter what your opinion is.

 

[Pin]

Really? Because when you vote...even though it's really messed up with illegals etc it does matter what your opinion is.

Nonsense. Accomplished folk determine the outcome of elections primarily through control over public opinion (including the electoral college electors). Whatever your opinion (Liberal or Conservative) on politics in America, it's convenient for the already powerful, the already wealthy, accomplished among us.

Propaganda Model 101.

The real solution to political problems: accomplish things in life, get wealthy, get powerful.

 

[Eventhorizon]

Nonsense. Accomplished folk determine the outcome of elections primarily through control over public opinion (including the electoral college electors). Whatever your opinion (Liberal or Conservative) on politics in America, it's convenient for the already powerful, the already wealthy, accomplished among us.

Propaganda Model 101.

The real solution to political problems: accomplish things in life, get wealthy, get powerful.

I see your point and that certainly is a way to have more influance than just voting.

 

[Pin]

I see your point and that certainly is a way to have more influance than just voting.

I'm pleased you see things my way.

 

[Reason]

I think the issue with many people, liberals and conservatives, is that their political leaning is their identity. It's so easy to label oneself a liberal or a conservative (join an ideological team) without achieving anything notable in life.

Being a conservative or a liberal isn't an achievement.

Many people (liberals and conservatives alike) are so wrapped up in political bullshit because they're lazy, want a club to join, and don't have the work ethic and IQ necessary to join a group of distinction (e.g Navy Seals, Microsoft Board of Directors, NASA Astronaut Corps, etc).

Fuck yes, everything in this post!

 

[Eventhorizon]

I'm pleased you see things my way.

In this instance it's hard not to. But I don't think I agree fully with you in that people who currently don't have money to influance things should be silent. It's just that they don't have as much influance.

 

[dogman6126]

No. Some people are Democrats because it's like a football team to them. Their family is Democrat so they are to. Never applying a thought process to it.
You have to be intelligent and be able to think for yourself to be anything other than a Democrat.

Just as a minor edit, this is true for conservatives too. People on every side of the ideological spectrum treat political groups like football teams (love the comparison btw). It is hard to be something other than what your friends and family are, but I think it speaks to one's independence if you can be different.

Liberal or Conservative, it doesn't matter what someone's political opinions are if they haven't accomplished jack-shit in life.

I disagree with this. What about political savants that are 16 years old? What about people who grew up in a position that prevented them from accomplishing anything (over-barring family, limited exposure to other positions until extremely recently, having just moved to a places of opportunity in America from some third world country)? These are people who could have a lot to contribute and yet may not have accomplishments to show for. Further, you want to be wary of an elitist attitude here. I agree that those who are more well educated in a field are generally better suited to determine policies in that field, but this does not mean those outside the field have nothing to contribute. The mere fact of alternative, unique perspectives, can bring about ideas that so called experts in the field might not realize. An example is how well-educated individuals have a tendency to overthink problems. Sometimes a simple solution is best, and a less educated individual might be more well suited to identify that sort of solution.