Thoughts on Bigotry, Intolerance, Racism, Sexism, etc.

[Flavus Aquila]

Time for some THOUGHTS on racism, bigotry, sexism, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, misandry, misogyny, etc. etc. etc.

A couple contempory things:
1. Whenever there is a terrorist attack, it seems that everyone is racing to get their statements of solidarity with the victims - and caution against Islamophobia in. Likewise whenever there is a race-riot, government persecution, military intervention, or whatever.
(Such statements seem very important to a lot of people, but also seem to do absolutely nothing to address the problem).

2. Notions of right/wrong seem less important than notions of tolerance/intolerance.
(It is almost as though everything must be tolerable, except intolerance - but both calling and failing to tolerate intolerance seem inconsistent/hypocritical).


My personal view about intolerance is that most people don't want to put up with (tolerate) some things/ideas/views/religions/group-identifying-characteristics. Or perhaps, that most people judge rashly, or incorrectly - applying labels in preference to actually dialoguing. The problem for me is that people are inconsistent in how they apply their judgement principles. How do judgements of right/wrong, or good/bad end up being applied almost exclusively to notions of tolerance/intolerance? For consistency's sake, should intolerance be met with tolerance, or intolerance? Or if we are going to say one disposition is right, or wrong, shouldn't we say that any view can be judged as right, or wrong/ good/bad?


***Nota Bene: before anyone gets up on a high-horse and makes assumptions/condemnations - or before making personal declarations of their position - this thread is about the process of making assumptions/informed views; about the process of making condemnations/commendations; etc. *** (I think it is a fair assumption to think this nota bene is required - if you disagree with that, I want to know how you come to disagree with it).

 

[Sriracha]

It is intriguing how easy it is to apply judgement when coming from a country where it is difficult to obtain citizenship (and one must cross a body of water to reach.) USA and Australia (for example) might be melting pots of culture, but both are diligent about checking backgrounds papers (omit illegals.) We are harshly judgmental, but for good reason. Here we have Europe, whose borders are quite fluid and yet they are just now beginning to see the problem of their hospitality. It is always the few that ruin things for the many. Extremists do not fit in with Democracy, they want to change it. My judgement stems from the inability and lack of desire to assimilate to a new country, and this goes for all cultures.

If what happened in Paris, happens in the USA ... I would bet money there would be riots. We are already hyper-sensitive after 9/11.

 

[Kaleidoscopic]

It is intriguing how easy it is to apply judgement when coming from a country where it is difficult to obtain citizenship (and one must cross a body of water to reach.) USA and Australia (for example) might be melting pots of culture, but both are diligent about checking backgrounds papers (omit illegals.) We are harshly judgmental, but for good reason. Here we have Europe, whose borders are quite fluid and yet they are just now beginning to see the problem of their hospitality. It is always the few that ruin things for the many. Extremists do not fit in with Democracy, they want to change it. My judgement stems from the inability and lack of desire to assimilate to a new country, and this goes for all cultures.

If what happened in Paris, happened in the USA ... I would bet money there would be riots.

Borders are fluid only between EU countries. As for members of ISIS there's from all kind of backgrounds, so I wouldn't generalize that this or that country is at fault. ISIS can be and is everywhere. Soon or late there will be riots if there haven't happen yet. But riots against what? Against terrorism? Against ISIS? Specify a little please.

 

[Trifoilum]

Time for some THOUGHTS on racism, bigotry, sexism, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, misandry, misogyny, etc. etc. etc.

A couple contempory things:
1. Whenever there is a terrorist attack, it seems that everyone is racing to get their statements of solidarity with the victims - and caution against Islamophobia in. Likewise whenever there is a race-riot, government persecution, military intervention, or whatever.
(Such statements seem very important to a lot of people, but also seem to do absolutely nothing to address the problem).

I have to point out that this sort of statement seems to be more and more popular after 9/11, the War on Terror, and the mess after that.
I suspect it's because there -is- a long and painful history of how the collective outrage can.....hurt people. Innocent people.
For many, this statement and reminder is very important because people in intense emotion tend to forget logic and rationality. Black and white morality, us against them way of looking at things, accusation by proxy / association...... These are things that occurred quite common whenever people are upset, angry, fearful.

Me included.

Addressing the problem is necessary and important, of course, but the rationale behind these statements is to make sure that the problem is addressed to the right party.

Again, for the global example, see the War on Terror and the results. I think each countries have their own version of that too.

—¹Ã¢â‚¬”¹2. Notions of right/wrong seem less important than notions of tolerance/intolerance.
(It is almost as though everything must be tolerable, except intolerance - but both calling and failing to tolerate intolerance seem inconsistent/hypocritical).

I disagree, primarily because intolerance is seen as wrong and criticized as wrong in this case. Therefore it's not that tolerance/intolerance are -above- the notion of right or wrong, but they are simply the part of being right or wrong.

My personal view about intolerance is that most people don't want to put up with (tolerate) some things/ideas/views/religions/group-identifying-characteristics. Or perhaps, that most people judge rashly, or incorrectly - applying labels in preference to actually dialoguing. The problem for me is that people are inconsistent in how they apply their judgement principles. How do judgements of right/wrong, or good/bad end up being applied almost exclusively to notions of tolerance/intolerance? For consistency's sake, should intolerance be met with tolerance, or intolerance? Or if we are going to say one disposition is right, or wrong, shouldn't we say that any view can be judged as right, or wrong/ good/bad?

Some would argue to meet intolerance with tolerance, I think?
Only love can defeat hate, and so on.
But I won't say much about this part-- I shall think more about it.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

[/I]I have to point out that this sort of statement seems to be more and more popular after 9/11, the War on Terror, and the mess after that.
I suspect it's because there -is- a long and painful history of how the collective outrage can.....hurt people. Innocent people.
For many, this statement and reminder is very important because people in intense emotion tend to forget logic and rationality. Black and white morality, us against them way of looking at things, accusation by proxy / association...... These are things that occurred quite common whenever people are upset, angry, fearful.

Me included.

Addressing the problem is necessary and important, of course, but the rationale behind these statements is to make sure that the problem is addressed to the right party.

Again, for the global example, see the War on Terror and the results. I think each countries have their own version of that too.


I disagree, primarily because intolerance is seen as wrong and criticized as wrong in this case. Therefore it's not that tolerance/intolerance are -above- the notion of right or wrong, but they are simply the part of being right or wrong.

Some would argue to meet intolerance with tolerance, I think?
Only love can defeat hate, and so on.
But I won't say much about this part-- I shall think more about it.

On your last point, I have difficulty with it as well. There just doesn't seem to be a way to advocate tolerance without discriminating against someone. I think the advocacy of tolerance is an intrinsically contradictory position - because it presumes that it is the best worldview to the exclusion of others simply because they are not identical to tolerance world-view, which is by definition bigoted. Ie. Tolerance is always intolerant of views outside its own, if it were not the tolerant would have no issue with any view whatsoever.

To me discussion of tolerance/intolerance always seems to serve no function, other than to coerce people to agree with a particular policy.

Don't get me wrong - I think certain policies need to be pursued, and others challenged across a very broad spectrum of views - and by opposing positions. However, I don't think that discussion of tolerance can actually function, because it presumes one position is right, or at least more right than another.

 

[Trifoilum]

I don't think it should be a discussion, actually.

More like a call. A reminder, if you may.

As for the other....I think we're entering linguistic/psychological/theoretical realm here...Hmm.
Which means there are a lot of factors playing-- gut feelings, common sense, general values and understanding of what is right and what is not, etc.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

I don't think it should be a discussion, actually.

More like a call. A reminder, if you may.

As for the other....I think we're entering linguistic/psychological/theoretical realm here...Hmm.
Which means there are a lot of factors playing-- gut feelings, common sense, general values and understanding of what is right and what is not, etc.

Wouldn't it be less prone to B.S. if people just stopped getting a phobia about claiming that their view is right and that opposing views are wrong. Calling someone intolerant is basically the same thing, but just so self-contradictory and self-deceiving. I wouldn't mind if all of the present ideological debates going on in the world remained unchanged, except that people would actually have the guts and honesty to claim their own position as being right.

 

[Kaleidoscopic]

Twenty-six mosques around France have been subject to attack by firebombs, gunfire, pig heads, and grenades as Muslims are targeted with violence in the wake of the Paris attacks.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/firebombs-and-pigs-heads-thrown-into-mosques-as-anti-muslim-attacks-increase-after-paris-shootings-9977423.html

 

[JJJA]

For a country to tolerate the intolerant, is to become intolerant.

 

[Kaleidoscopic]

For a country to tolerate the intolerant, is to become intolerant.

So are you justifying terror with terror? Bravo! That's very intelligent.

 

[JJJA]

So are you justifying terror with terror? Bravo! That's very intelligent.

No, you just decided to interpret what I said in the worst possible way. And congratulations on looking incredibly condescending.

 

[Skarekrow]

For a country to tolerate the intolerant, is to become intolerant.

Intolerant of whom then...It’s own citizens?
How exactly is Paris tolerating the intolerant?
The French actually are more intolerant of Muslims than many other countries, including the US. (i.e. passing laws to remove religious head scarves, making fun of their Prophets, etc.) which is probably why it was targeted.
I’m not dismissing the terrible tragedy that took place yesterday, but we (your beloved Anglosphere) have been systematically snatching up their lands, overthrowing governments, starting wars, blowing up civilians with drones and other methods for decades if not centuries.
So why is everyone so surprised by this?

So what are we to do? Make the Muslims wear a patch on their arm so everyone knows who they are? Deport them all? To where?

 

[Kaleidoscopic]

No, you just decided to interpret what I said in the worst possible way. And congratulations on looking incredibly condescending.

Thank you very much!

 

[JJJA]

Intolerant of whom then...It’s own citizens?
How exactly is Paris tolerating the intolerant?
The French actually are more intolerant of Muslims than many other countries, including the US. (i.e. passing laws to remove religious head scarves, making fun of their Prophets, etc.) which is probably why it was targeted.
I’m not dismissing the terrible tragedy that took place yesterday, but we (your beloved Anglosphere) have been systematically snatching up their lands, overthrowing governments, starting wars, blowing up civilians with drones and other methods for decades if not centuries.
So why is everyone so surprised by this?

So what are we to do? Make the Muslims wear a patch on their arm so everyone knows who they are? Deport them all? To where?

I didn't realise this was a discussion about Paris, or Muslims, or terror. I was being deliberately vague, I am sorry if you received the wrong impression. I will try to explain what I said later, as I need to rest a bit.

 

[JJJA]

Islamophobia is ridiculous because it seems pretty strange to have a phobia of a bunch of ideas. It seems to me that it has been created by people that wish to collectively brand all criticism of Islam under one roof.

 

[Skarekrow]

I didn't realise this was a discussion about Paris, or Muslims, or terror. I was being deliberately vague, I am sorry if you received the wrong impression. I will try to explain what I said later, as I need to rest a bit.

Well, per the OP we were discussing terrorism.
Once again…I am not attacking you personally JJJA…it was just a bit vague, apparently deliberately like you stated.
Have a good rest Sir!! May dreams of peace fill your head!

 

[SpecialEdition]

Hatred is very interesting. I feel that hatred is used as a shield. If a person or group hates another enough, they irrationally fear that the potency of their hate will make the hated feel unwelcome enough to keep their distance. To me, it is a very natural reaction to form a strong aversion to things that you are uncomfortable with or disagree with. It is even more natural for that aversion to develop into hatred and then spur into action when the thing you fear "attacks."

It does not surprise me that there are backlashes and a generic labeling of people that is happening. When people fly under your radar, use your resources and then come out from under your nose to slaughter your citizens I can see how it would become a boiling point to sort of "sterilize" the area and try to close it off from anymore toxic entities. In the case of France, it does not shock me that they are making attacks on mosques and especially not that they've closed their borders.

Like fearing all dogs because there are dogs that attack but accepting them. Then you see or experience a dog attack and it reinforces your fear 10 fold and your fear turns to hate and you never want to be around dogs again and just thinking about them or being near them sets you immediately on edge.

The fear to hate development is natural but when applied on a grander scale it can develop into something very ugly - like war and a mass division of people and cultures that does more to separate humanity than unite it.

 

[Trifoilum]

Wouldn't it be less prone to B.S. if people just stopped getting a phobia about claiming that their view is right and that opposing views are wrong. Calling someone intolerant is basically the same thing, but just so self-contradictory and self-deceiving. I wouldn't mind if all of the present ideological debates going on in the world remained unchanged, except that people would actually have the guts and honesty to claim their own position as being right.

.......uuhhhhhhhhh.

Apparently you travel in a more cerebral circles than I am.

*awkward laugh*
It won't change anything. If you're saying that calling someone intolerant is self-contradictory and self-deceiving (which I guess I can see how), being 'honest' will simply change it with...I don't know, self-deluding.

I think this particular point is something that goes beyond tolerance and intolerance--beyond politics and religions.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Well, per the OP we were discussing terrorism.
Once again…I am not attacking you personally JJJA…it was just a bit vague, apparently deliberately like you stated.
Have a good rest Sir!! May dreams of peace fill your head!

My OP isn't so limiting. Read it again.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

.......uuhhhhhhhhh.

Apparently you travel in a more cerebral circles than I am.

*awkward laugh*
It won't change anything. If you're saying that calling someone intolerant is self-contradictory and self-deceiving (which I guess I can see how), being 'honest' will simply change it with...I don't know, self-deluding.

I think this particular point is something that goes beyond tolerance and intolerance--beyond politics and religions.

If calling intolerance is hypocritically intolerant of other views.
And if claiming that one's views are right is self-deluding.
What's left? Just claiming that I want things this way because I want them so. ?

Anyhow claiming that one's position is right seems less negative than branding other views intolerant.