Amazon.com Widgets

Is calling someone a bigot technically an action of bigotry?

Asked by: xhammy
  • Yes it is!

    Many people call others bigots mainly the LGBT and Liberal groups lately. A bigot by definition is quote: "a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions". So basically anyone with an explanation point on an Yes/No debate.Org opinion. By calling someone a bigot based on their opinion, you are expressing your intolerance towards people with that opinion thus making you a bigot.

  • Without a doubt.

    Bigotry's definition, according to Apple's standard dictionary, is "intolerance towards those who hold different opinions than oneself." Now let's say I stroll into a McDonald's and say, "I think gay marriage is wrong." Immediately, someone will object. The most likely response involves the words "intolerant," "bigot," "hater," or "right-wing *****." Let's zoom in on the "bigot" accusation. If I am bigoted, I would be intolerant of anything or anyone whose opinions diverge from mine. Does this not mean that the person who instantly called me a bigot for opposing gay marriage is a bigot himself? His opinions on gay marriage and mine were at odds, so he instantly dismissed me as a bigot. He didn't take time to consider my opinion- instead he was vehemently opposed to ME because of my OPINION. This is by very definition a bigot. I've seen posts saying "It depends on the actions." Really? That's not what the dictionary says. The dictionary gave that word a meaning, with no footnotes attached. Therefore, anyone who says "Bigotry is all about the actions" is changing the definition of the word. Words have definitions for a reason- and that reason is not to be changed to manipulate an argument in your favor. Bigotry is as bigotry is defined- bigotry.

  • Yes, It's a very general term encompassing all of humanity.

    "A bigot is someone that is intolerant towards another's opinions" is one definition which makes it a little less of a generalizing term. Basically, If you've ever argued with someone or didn't approve of their views and opinions, You're a bigot. It's always amusing to be called a bigot, Because majority of the time it's by someone who has lost emotional control from their intolerance of your statements.

  • Hypocrisy is Hypocrisy

    Saying that someone is a bigot because they think and do, “something bigoted, ” is saying you do not tolerate their views or actions. You are intolerant of their views of the world, Making you a bigot. Just because you are a bigot, Does not mean you are wrong, But calling someone a bigot because you disagree with them and want to prove your point through name calling rather than by presenting facts, Or getting answers does in fact make you both intolerant and prejudiced.

  • Read a Dictionary

    Unwillingness to endure differing views, Opinions, Or beliefs, Or people is bigotry.

    Bigotry is neither good or bad. It all depends on what you're being a bigot about.

    Examples:
    - Bigotry can be good if you refuse to endure paedophilia

    and

    - Bigotry can be bad if you refuse to endure a certain group of people

  • Read a Dictionary.

    Unwillingness to endure differing views, Opinions, Or beliefs, Or people is bigotry.

    Bigotry is neither good or bad. It all depends on what you're being a bigot about.

    Examples:
    - Bigotry can be good if you refuse to endure paedophilia

    and

    - Bigotry can be bad if you refuse to endure a certain group of people

  • Yes, better ways to voice your opinion in most cases.

    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 is a terrible question

    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.

  • Catachresis and Acyrologia.

    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.

  • Yes, the way it is most commonly used, but not if it is used correctly.

    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.

  • Intolerance isn't to simply disagree.

    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.

  • Actions Speak Loudest.

    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.

  • If I call a kettle black, does that make me a pot?

    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.

  • Bigot = intolerance. Stating so does not = bigot.

    If you are a bigot toward gays, For example, You are intolerant toward someone their sexual orientation. I can recognize that about you and still tolerate you. I can still accept that fact that you have this belief, And it is different than mine. In this example, You are a bigot. Based on your acts of bigotry. If you are intolerant toward gays though, You are the very person I have to worry about taking action and voting my rights away, Because you cannot accept that they're different than yours. You do not tolerate it. No part of that automatically makes me a bigot toward you for simply recognizing it about you. This isn't a "takes one to know one" situation. I can recognize that you're a murderer if you kill people. That doesn't automatically make me a murderer.

  • Calling an Orange an Orange

    This was stated earlier. Calling an orange an orange does not make you an orange. Calling out hate and ignorance does not make you ignorant. The fact that you’re calling it out shows that you are, In fact, Not ignorant. Just because you may be intolerant of an individual’s hateful words or actions certainly does not make you a bigot.

  • It’s a strawman attack.

    One can easily call out bigotry and be tolerant of it. Identifying a bigot and respecting their freedom of speech is not intolerance. If a person exhibits a position in a manner consistent with bigotry, Then “calling an orange an orange” is not bigotry. It’s situational at the very least

  • How can the truth ever be spoken?

    Tolerance allows the presence of differing opinions while bigotry seeks to change a law system or inflict discriminatory practices based upon prejudice towards personally held beliefs. If we cannot speak truth on the existence of discrimination, How can we then take action to support our neighbors against hatred? Stating the truth does not equate to intolerance. Instead, It denies ignorance.

  • No; Identifying someone does not define yourself.

    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.

  • Not to confuse bigotry as immaturity

    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.

    Posted by: 9HD
  • Intolerance and Bigotry aren't the same

    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.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.