Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E who wrote (11388)	4/15/2001 2:47:32 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 82486

I suppose calling someone bigoted is bigoted, since it does seem to meet the tests of the definition. 1. you are expressing partiality to a political idea or a religious or racial idea (whatever that might be, even if you are calling someone who expresses a hatred for another race a bigot, you are a bigot for saying they are a bigot, since you are expressing partiality for not hating whatever the initial person hates- or at the very least you are partial to the political idea that the person should not express their hate) and 2. name calling and labeling are an expression of intolerance, and if it's all words, the initial intolerance is usually no worse than the label "bigot". Of course it's very hard not to think things like "bigot" or other things, when people don't agree with you. Or at least I find it hard not to think those sorts of things. But now I stop, and I realize they are every bit as sure they are right as I am. If they weren't so sure, why would they argue? Why would they bother. Everyone is sure, but not about the same things. It's a funny old world.

To: E who wrote (11388)	4/15/2001 3:45:34 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 82486

More appropriate would be a pointing out of the erroneous entries in that listing. I don't know that it's the entries in the list that are at issue. If a person doesn't manifest these characteristics, in whole or in part, or even just declares him or herself not to be a fundamentalist, I accept that they are not fundamentalists. I think the shortfall in your "definition" is that it doesn't allow for any individuals without that set of characteristics to be fundamentalists. Surely at least some fundamentalists are quietly pious. I knew one once. Karen

To: E who wrote (11388)	4/15/2001 6:49:08 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

How bigoted of you to name-call in response to a listing of specific observations. More appropriate would be a pointing out of the erroneous entries in that listing. Usually I agree with you, E, but this time I think you're wrong. You said that you found that fundamentists generally had certain very negative characteristics. You accused them as a class of not caring about suffering, ignoring reason and evidence, etc. It was a broad assault on the integrity of an entire class of people. First, how can one point out any erroroneous entries in that? If a poster (not, of course, I posted that he generally found women posters on SI to be ignorant, stupid, asinine, and better off barefoot, pregnant, and chained to the stove, how could you point out erroneous listings in that? They are merely his observations. What should the response be? To let the posting go unchallenged? To point out some specific postings by women that were not those things? Response would be easy: either a) okay, there are rare exceptions, and you were able to find a few, or b) in my opinion those were, indeed, ignorant, stupid, asinine, etc. Perhaps it was overly strong of jlallen to call you bigoted, but when I read your post myself I was also disappointed in the negative generalizations you drew and your attack on a whole class of people. From some posters here, I would find such a post unsurprising; from you, I expect better. I hope you were just having a bad brain day.