What's the difference between being a bigot and standing up for your beliefs?

[Manhands]

Maybe you should stop talking since you're in the same boat as Endus, illiterate in so many domains that it's laughable but you have "power" on an internet forum so you are above even dictionaries as long as it doesn't fit what you want to say. There literally aren't any words allowed on this forum to give an accurate description of either of you.

Yes, let the hate flow through you. I can feel the intolerance of other viewpoints feeding your power.

[Sky High]

Hmm who to trust... Wikipedia or OXFORD.

You are trolling me right?

I see you ignored it wasn't just Wikipedia that says that, first link that came up for me when I typed it in was Merriam Webster. which as far as I'm aware is totally trustworthy.

[May90]

Standing up to your beliefs is standing up to your beliefs.
Not tolerating other beliefs is being a bigot.

Can I have a cookie?

[Deathquoi]

Why does anyone even bother responding to these moronic threads?

Look, I'm bigoted against people who create stupid threads!

[primalmatter]

I see you ignored it wasn't just Wikipedia that says that, first link that came up for me when I typed it in was Merriam Webster. which as far as I'm aware is totally trustworthy.

You don't beat Oxford at least you didn't in the three post secondary schools I received a education from.

College, university and finally a military academy.

I am ignoring your links and mocking you because you are trying to argue with the supreme court of word definitions...

[Tico]

A bigot is someone who is intolerant of someone with a differing opinion. A bigot can stand up for their beliefs, it's not mutually exclusive, and it doesn't mean their beliefs aren't bigoted.

There are not too many differences, but I think this is very much one of them.

[Sama-81]

To be utterly semantic about this, since they're at the point of citing dictionary definitions; you identifying that another person is a bigot is not "intolerance", and your issue is not that it's a different opinion, your issue is the explicit harm that opinion encourages or creates.

The definition doesn't actually support their interpretation.

I agree that it doesn't support that definition. It does mean however, that bigotry is exceptionally prevalent also among those that are the strongest proponents of "good causes", such as progressive change. It's every bit as easy being a bigot when fighting nationalism, conservatism, what have you, as it is when fighting liberalism, feminism, etc. None of those targets are more "legitimate" than the other, in terms of bigotry.

Have to say that I like the Oxford dictionary. Short, poignant and overall precise definitions and explanations. Particularly like their definition of "racism", not everyone gets that one right.

[Sky High]

You don't beat Oxford at least you didn't in the three post secondary schools I received a education from.

College, university and finally a military academy.

I am ignoring your links and mocking you because you are trying to argue with the supreme court of word definitions...

lol, as far as I can tell you're just running with the one definition that gives you wiggle room to say any and all differing ideas can be counted as bigotry. but w/e that's your dumbass opinion to hold.

[Endus]

Hmm who to trust... Wikipedia or OXFORD.

You are trolling me right?

You realize this is an appeal to authority fallacy, right?

There's nothing about Oxford dictionaries which makes them somehow "more definitive" than any other dictionary.

And heck; dictionaries aren't proscriptive, they're descriptive. They adjust to account for how popular use of a word changes.

Merriam-Webster is just as reasonable a dictionary source as Oxford. There's also these;

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dict.../english/bigot
"a person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs and who does not like other people who have different beliefs or a different way of life:"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bigot
"One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ"

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/d...ritish/bigotry
"the practice of having very strong and unreasonable opinions, especially about politics, race, or religion, and refusing to consider other people’s opinions"

About the only case you're making is that Oxford's definition is perhaps unworkably broad, not that the word itself is meaningless; you're pointing out a flaw in ONE dictionary. That's it.

[Deleted]

You don't beat Oxford at least you didn't in the three post secondary schools I received a education from.

College, university and finally a military academy.

I am ignoring your links and mocking you because you are trying to argue with the supreme court of word definitions...

Okay fine, using your oxford link definition.

Bigotry is being intolerant of another opinon? You alright with that? Cool.

Disagreeing with someones opinion, is not bigotry.

Hating someone for having another opinion or ideal, that is bigotry.


The first is part of a healthy debate, the other is a closed circle of hatred basically.

English is technically my second language, but you guys are spinning the oxford definiton so hard it's silly.

The word Bigot is basically used as a slur against close-minded people, people not interested in discussion but only wanting to show their dislike of an idea or opinion regardless of facts and or truth.

Calling someone a bigot isnt bigotry, but refusing to acknowledge his viewpoint is. :P

[primalmatter]

lol, as far as I can tell you're just running with the one definition that gives you wiggle room to say any and all differing ideas can be counted as bigotry. but w/e that's your dumbass opinion to hold.

You heard it here folks!

Using Oxford dictionary definitions makes you a dumbass.

- - - Updated - - -

You realize this is an appeal to authority fallacy, right?

There's nothing about Oxford dictionaries which makes them somehow "more definitive" than any other dictionary.

And heck; dictionaries aren't proscriptive, they're descriptive. They adjust to account for how popular use of a word changes.

Merriam-Webster is just as reasonable a dictionary source as Oxford. There's also these;

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dict.../english/bigot
"a person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs and who does not like other people who have different beliefs or a different way of life:"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bigot
"One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ"

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/d...ritish/bigotry
"the practice of having very strong and unreasonable opinions, especially about politics, race, or religion, and refusing to consider other people’s opinions"

About the only case you're making is that Oxford's definition is perhaps unworkably broad, not that the word itself is meaningless; you're pointing out a flaw in ONE dictionary. That's it.

We are really going to do this are we?

We are going to debate if the Oxford english dictionary has the correct definition?

God how we as a people have fallen.

[Sky High]

Using Oxford dictionary definitions makes you a dumbass.

the only one saying that here is you "cough" just so we're clear.

[primalmatter]

Okay fine, using your oxford link definition.

Bigotry is being intolerant of another opinon? You alright with that? Cool.

Disagreeing with someones opinion, is not bigotry.

Hating someone for having another opinion or ideal, that is bigotry.


The first is part of a healthy debate, the other is a closed circle of hatred basically.

English is technically my second language, but you guys are spinning the oxford definiton so hard it's silly.

The word Bigot is basically used as a slur against close-minded people, people not interested in discussion but only wanting to show their dislike of an idea or opinion regardless of facts and or truth.

Calling someone a bigot isnt bigotry, but refusing to acknowledge his viewpoint is. :P

Its a slur USED by small minded people.

The rest understand its actual meaning and understand they are yelling gibberish.

[Endus]

You don't beat Oxford at least you didn't in the three post secondary schools I received a education from.

College, university and finally a military academy.

I am ignoring your links and mocking you because you are trying to argue with the supreme court of word definitions...

They were probably referring to the OED, which isn't the same as the dictionary's you're actually citing. The OED isn't available online for free; you need to have an institutional subscription.

As a grad student, I do have access. I'll just copy-paste the OED's definition here; if you don't have access yourself, you'll have to take my word for it.

Brit. /ˈbɪɡət/ , U.S. /ˈbɪɡət/Forms: 15– bigot, 16 biggot.
Frequency (in current use):
Origin: A borrowing from French. Etymon: French bigot.
Etymology: < Middle French bigot (French bigot ... (Show More)
A. n.


1. A religious hypocrite; (also) a superstitious adherent of religion. Obs.

2. a. A person considered to adhere unreasonably or obstinately to a particular religious belief, practice, etc.
b. In extended use: a fanatical adherent or believer; a person characterized by obstinate, intolerant, or strongly partisan beliefs.

http://www.oed.com/

I cleaned it up slightly from a raw copy-paste, but that's the OED's definition. Which doesn't match what you're claiming. The Oxford Dictionary is the short-form public version of the OED, and is NOT the exhaustive resource you're claiming. And you SHOULD know the difference, if you're going to appeal to the three institutions you've had recommend the OED.

[primalmatter]

They were probably referring to the OED, which isn't the same as the dictionary's you're actually citing. The OED isn't available online for free; you need to have an institutional subscription.

As a grad student, I do have access. I'll just copy-paste the OED's definition here; if you don't have access yourself, you'll have to take my word for it.

Brit. /ˈbɪɡət/ , U.S. /ˈbɪɡət/Forms: 15– bigot, 16 biggot.
Frequency (in current use):
Origin: A borrowing from French. Etymon: French bigot.
Etymology: < Middle French bigot (French bigot ... (Show More)
A. n.


1. A religious hypocrite; (also) a superstitious adherent of religion. Obs.

2. a. A person considered to adhere unreasonably or obstinately to a particular religious belief, practice, etc.
b. In extended use: a fanatical adherent or believer; a person characterized by obstinate, intolerant, or strongly partisan beliefs.

http://www.oed.com/

I cleaned it up slightly from a raw copy-paste, but that's the OED's definition. Which doesn't match what you're claiming. The Oxford Dictionary is the short-form public version of the OED, and is NOT the exhaustive resource you're claiming. And you SHOULD know the difference, if you're going to appeal to the three institutions you've had recommend the OED.

You can use it for free with that link...

says this btw.

bigotry
The quality or condition of a bigot; obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, practice, faction, etc.; intolerance, prejudice

.

Are we done yet?

If I am going to be giving out lessons all day I am gonna have to start charging people.

[sethman75]

The answer OP is none.

Bigot is a word made up by sad lonely left wing people that won't accept that anybody else can think differently than they do so they throw it out at every opportunity to make themselves feel better.

The fact that said sad people are using it all the time to promote bullshit agendas proves that it doesn't work. They will always feel sad until they grow up.

[Endus]

You can use it for free with that link...

says this btw.
.

Are we done yet?

If I am going to be giving out lessons all day I am gonna have to start charging people.

No, we're not "done", since that definition completely contradicts the argument you were trying to make earlier in the thread. It's not just about "different opinions", it does not exclude things like racism, and it clearly requires that the belief in question be obstinate or unreasonable.

[Espe]

The problem is many of you want to throw the word bigot around without any true proof of context. For example, stating obvious facts about how a majority of violent crimes are committed by blacks/hispanics proportionate to population size in the United States. It's not bigoted to raise concerns about this. It is bigoted to say the reason for this is simply because they are deviant beings.

Since the passing of the voting rights acts conservatives in the US have used bigoted dogwhistles to build a coalition of the angry and ignorant to make up for the votes they can't outright steal through mass voter disfranchisement of US citizens and gerrymandering (The Southern Strategy). So naturally when people hear you start to talk about statistics that way they will be waiting for the other shoe to drop.

Occam's razor.

[Darsithis]

To anyone who thinks they aren't a bigot, read the following sentence. If you disagree with me, you are bigotted towards my ideal. If not, cool.

WoW is the greatest game ever released, console gaming is better than PC gaming, I like liverwurst.

If you don't agree with anything in that sentence, congrats! You are a bigot, and guess what, THATS OKAY.

Disagreeing with someone is not bigotry. I'm really shocked at how many examples people keep bringing up in that vein. If you tell someone you think they should die for loving World of Warcraft you have crossed over the line of just not agreeing with someone into bigotry. It's not that hard to grasp.

[Xires]

A bigot is someone who is intolerant of someone with a differing opinion. A bigot can stand up for their beliefs, it's not mutually exclusive, and it doesn't mean their beliefs aren't bigoted.

Tell that to those pandering to the left. If you are white and have an education then you have white privledge and you need to check yourself. If you are white and don't have a college degree then you are white trash and you need to stfu. If you are 50+ and white and not ridden with white guilt and aren't voting for Hillary then you just need to die off. Those are the words and beliefs of the "tolerant" left.

So to answer the OP's question the different between being a bigot and standing up for your belief is the following

1. Do not be white and you can say/do anything and it is socially "progressive" and not bigoted because you aren't white
2. Be white and say anything the left doesn't like and they will label you (stop labeling me!!! an old leftist argument) a bigot.
3. Don't be white, period because you are oppressing someone...not sure who or how...but you are doing it.

Today bigotry can be anything from a flag that someone is offended by to a different idea that you don't agree with because it doesn't put minority's on a totem poll above all others.

Example: BLM in Europe- which is PROOF that this group has been and is complaining for the sake of complaining. Why? They want free shit and feel the world owes them especially since they have seen that white guilt and the left can help them achieve those goals...or atleast they believe it will.