Calling someone a bigot is a strong fighting word mostly used to insist "I'm right you're wrong so there" without giving a calm, rational line of reasoning. It's the equivalent of calling someone a homophobic. How are you going to get people to understand your perspective if all you do is ridicule and insult them, especially online?
This all depends on the definition of Bigot being used.
Websters dictionary defines it as "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"
Dictionary.Com defines it as "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion."
Calling someone a bigot, generally, coincides with an intolerance of their views or, phrased differently, their creed/belief/opinion. Thus by dictionary.Com, you are bigoted about their opinions because it doesn't align with your own (which is why you are calling them out).
However, by the Webster definition, bigotry may be specifically about members of groups- which bigoted people aren't really considered to be a group. Except the KKK.
Still, based on the diverse definitions of the term, it seems that if a "yes" or a "no" had to be chosen, "yes" would be more accurate than "no" for this question, as even webster's (though implying its about racial/minority/group discrimination) does say a bigot is "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices," and calling someone a bigot ultimately displays an intolerant devotion to your own opinions.
This all being said, if someone is being racist call them out for being a bigot. I'd be fine with being told I'm bigoted about racism because I most certainly am. But unlike being bigoted about race, being bigoted about racism isn't a bad thing.
Calling someone a bigot is by definition the exact same thing as being a bigot. It shows intolerance toward the opinions of others. I suspect this is a classic example of a catachresis where people want to use a word, but use it based on what they think it means, not what it actually means. The actual act of choosing the incorrect word is acyrologia. If you look at the opinions of those who disagree, several of them agree but try to explain it away. When you know the meaning of a word and try to use it to mean something else it creates gibberish, not a logical argument.
A bigot is someone who is not tolerant of opposing opinions, and to be tolerant is to allow opposing opinions to exist. Allowing them to exist means you are not actively trying to destroy or disallow them, even if you discourage or disagree with them. The only way you can disallow an opinion is to punish those who openly display it.
Therefore a bitgot is one who is actively trying to punish people who do not hold certain opinions/beliefs. If you call someone any insult ever, you are displaying intolerance and you are trying to socially punish them. If this is because of their opinion, you are the bigot. However, if it is because of their actions, then you are simply not tolerating certain actions which is both expected and required of anyone and everyone, and is no way being bigoted. This is because we can all at the very least agree everyone should be intolerate of serial killers. Therefore it is acceptable and expected to be intolerant based on someones actions. Trying to punish people for their opinions is an action, so being intolerant of bigots is acceptable. I said yes because again, most people dont call others bigots for thier actions, and in trying to punish an opinion they prove themselves bigots.
It appears to be a statement that said to someone else's as a statement of their own intolerance and hence bigoted in itself. In the end people should be allowed to believe what they want and essentially "agree to disagree". I think best use of "bigot" is properly used in the context of ethnic intolerance, i.e. Hating someone purely on skin colour. It's a quality that cannot be changed. Bigotry as is commonly referred to in a religious context or opinion relating to social, philosophical, or political arenas is an expression of the person who calls another a bigot, their own bigotry and in tolerance.
Calling someone a bigot automatically makes you a bigot because you're not tolerant to their opinion. Liberals are the first ones to label someone a bigot, to shut down an argument because they don't have any facts to support their position. Next time, before you label some a bigot, you should ask yourself the question, Am I the Bigot?
Yes it does, even openly calling someone a bigot shows you are intolerable to their opinion, surely this makes you more of a bigot for calling someone else one. Although I understand it depends on the subject. If the person who calls you a bigot also has an opinion on the certain subject in question, then they are definitely a bigot too, the fact that they called you out on your opposing opinion proves that they are intolerable of it.
I think it may be possible to identify bigotry without being a bigot. However, in the current and typical scenario, that is not the case. For example, in our age of political correctness it is typical for a LGBT supporter to identify a non-supporter as a bigot because of that non-support. In essence they are saying that to view non-heterosexual lifestyles as wrong is to be intolerant. But, the very act of viewing/labeling them as intolerant, is to be intolerant as well. Accordingly, to label someone a bigot typically means you are labeling yourself a bigot as well.
"a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions"
Everyone thinks that what they believe is correct; truth is subjective. There is no one size fits all. You cannot simply call someone a bigot because they are not politically correct; or have different believes to you that you perceive to be wrong - that's being a bigot yourself.
Simply calling someone a bigot doesn't necessarily equate to a biggoted action, however, if the individual labeling the other person a bigot feels angry and doesn't want to tollerate the opposing viewpoint of the other individual then, yes, they are themselves a bigot.
Most of the individuals throwing around the word on the Internet could certainly be labeled intolerent of the opposing view.
Solely calling someone a bigot doesn't imply that the bigot isn't tolerated, especially if the person does indeed express bigotry. That would simply be stating a fact.
Tolerance: "showing willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with"
But, is it bigotry to not tolerate intolerance? To have someone disagree with you is one thing, but for them to not allow the existence of your thoughts or behaviors is not something that should be tolerated in return. The views or actions of bigots aren't tolerated because they're personally threatening, not because they're different.
Calling someone a bigot based on their acts of bigotry doesn't determine if you are a bigot too. You can call a person a bigot and still act tolerant towards said person. Even if that person is acting like a bigot towards you. I personally believe that this sounds more like a "tolerance of intolerance" point. The LGBT community is fighting this argument against people who do not wish to treat everyone equally because they disagree with them. You can disagree with me on something, and not kick me out of your store.
Nothing wrong with intolerance. I don't tolerate a political system and media that have favored corporate interests over the wellbeing of humans for quite some time, and I think we need more bigotry against the influence of money on government. Corporations are unnatural and shouldn't have human rights. Where in any religious book is it said that corporations should be treated equally with natural persons? Hopefully future generations will have developed an intolerance for abuse of power that many in this day and age have developed against their fellow man who may look or act differently than they do. Bigotry is abhorrent when used to attempt to take away the inalienable rights of human beings, which is what certain political groups have done by conflating social issues with their designs to increase their grip on political power through corruptive lobbying and dismantling representative government.
Depending on how it's used and when it's used it can vary, however, merely the use of the term to denote someone's aspersions does not imply self identification.
If I express my views and someone screams vulgarities at me and proceeds to interrupt any/all debate on the topic, that is in fact a bigot. And it is not Bigoted of me to define them as such.
However, if I hear another's views and instead of debating or discussing their ideas/views I just scream bigot at them, then yes, using it would be bigoted of me to do so.
It is not the act of using the word bigot, it is misusing the word, or using the word in place of debate and discussion.
There's no justification in agreeing or respecting intolerable things such as violating Human Rights, certain ethnic groups, religions, etc. If someone does not tolerate another on not liking chocolate that would be considered as an act of immaturity not bigotry. If a person ends growing up while disagreeing on petty things that only produce close relationships to fall apart, people usually think of letting the person know that they need to grow up.
Bigotry is not only being intolerant of other's beliefs, it seeks to change laws based on hateful rhetoric. You can be intolerant of others and still support their right to have bigoted opinions. Bigots on the other hand expect to bend laws to their prejudice. In other words, you can disagree that being trans is okay, that's intolerance, but trying to enforce a law keeping them out of their preferred bathroom is bigotry.
If someone is a liar, what do you call them ? It's OK to call them a liar. A bigot is someone who has beliefs that are not based on truth, and they get mad if you don't accept and embrace what they TELL YOU. If that fits some people, then I guess they are bigots. Since when is telling the truth wrong ? Truth is stronger than love. Just throwing red paint on someone and saying they are red doesnt make them red. Your bigoted red accusations are painting people every day, but we should not recluse ourselves from calling them out for their brazen ignorant bigoted claims and lies.
It all depends on what you and your community believe in.
Let's put it this way, legal execution of a killer is not considered a bad thing, even though it is still a killing in reality.
If you believe racial prejudices have no place in 21st century, saying it clearly doesn't make you a bigot in pejorative sense.
To me, the idea of "fighting for equality" is an illusion, it is only about what part of society you want to be empowered.
If "fighting for equality" is what you are after, I'd advise that you should stop using labeling anyone with a pejorative terms, and give your opponent "I do not agree with your view on it" kind of response
If I use bigot as a noun, a label that denounces a persons views than yes I might be construed a bigot. Intolerant of anther's views. Another scenario may be if I use the adjective of the word and say this person has bigoted views. It does not denote bigotry on my part but an expression of how I see this persons opinion.
Bigotry is spreading like virus. Bigots needs to be told they are bigots. Its not intolerance, its truth. And by the polls here now 2 in every 3 person is a bigot and they know it.
Lets not forget, we have civil right movements only few decades back and still the bigots and racist are among us. Only hope is new generation with more liberal education