Philosophy Now Forum

ForCruxSake wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

ForCruxSake wrote: Just shows how little you know of me.

So are you done now?

See? Oh, and it's hardly anyone else's fault that you don't have enough willpower to not peek at foes' comments. 'Just sayin'

Great. So are you done now?

Don't worry, I will let you have the last word as it seems to be terribly important to you.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

ForCruxSake wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: See? Oh, and it's hardly anyone else's fault that you don't have enough willpower to not peek at foes' comments. 'Just sayin'

Great. So are you done now?

I just need confirmation that you are going to stop this nonsense.

You showing that you wish to continue just adds credence to my complaint about you personalising, demonising and mocking on virtually every post you make to me.

So ARE you done now? You need only confirm you are. Or just STOP.

The article is made by a half wit!

There are much more to the story about 'bigot', lacks of experience and most of all intellect in the sense people has awful analytic skills, most will easily be manipulated to believe in pure nonsense and babble if the source is highly regarded like professors and super geniuses.

HexHammer wrote:The article is made by a half wit!

There are much more to the story about 'bigot', lacks of experience and most of all intellect in the sense people has awful analytic skills, most will easily be manipulated to believe in pure nonsense and babble if the source is highly regarded like professors and super geniuses.

I think this was turning out to be the consensus before the thread derailed into something a lot less interesting to argue about.

Sometimes 'featured articles' in a paper, 'feature' because they are saying something no one else seems to be saying. Often there's a reason no-one else is saying it.

ForCruxSake wrote:I think this was turning out to be the consensus before the thread derailed into something a lot less interesting to argue about.

Sometimes 'featured articles' in a paper, 'feature' because they are saying something no one else seems to be saying. Often there's a reason no-one else is saying it.

The topic was bigotry, so we must follow the definition. What you say falls out of the definition of bigotry.

HexHammer wrote:

ForCruxSake wrote:I think this was turning out to be the consensus before the thread derailed into something a lot less interesting to argue about.

Sometimes 'featured articles' in a paper, 'feature' because they are saying something no one else seems to be saying. Often there's a reason no-one else is saying it.

The topic was bigotry, so we must follow the definition. What you say falls out of the definition of bigotry.

The topic was about 'an article on bigotry' and I was just responding to your comment which was about the writer of the article, I believe.

What you're saying makes little sense.

ForCruxSake wrote:Came across this article, today. Is it 'throwing light on' or 'going light on' empathy lacking bigots?

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... ?CMP=fb_gu

Thoughts?

At least I see, that it's a failure of understanding, not imagination!

ForCruxSake wrote:I think this was turning out to be the consensus before the thread derailed into something a lot less interesting to argue about.

Sometimes 'featured articles' in a paper, 'feature' because they are saying something no one else seems to be saying. Often there's a reason no-one else is saying it.

ForCruxSake wrote:The topic was about 'an article on bigotry' and I was just responding to your comment which was about the writer of the article, I believe.

What you're saying makes little sense.

Then what you say is indeed true, touché indeed!

I came to the notions that follow after reading Oliver Burkeman's article:

Bigotry is emotional, not rational. Bigotry is a manifestation of fear, a feeling and not a thought. It has little to do with analogies, assumptions or stuff from the realm of cognition. Empathy is also a matter of feeling and not a matter of thought. Empathy requires heart, not mental gymnastics.

Yet that linguistic switch experiment is intriguing. By “participants in the study” does the author mean a randomized sample from a representative population? How many groups were included in the linguistic switch? What does it mean that group members were not fully treated as human?

commonsense wrote:I came to the notions that follow after reading Oliver Burkeman's article:

Bigotry is emotional, not rational. Bigotry is a manifestation of fear, a feeling and not a thought. It has little to do with analogies, assumptions or stuff from the realm of cognition. Empathy is also a matter of feeling and not a matter of thought. Empathy requires heart, not mental gymnastics.

Yet that linguistic switch experiment is intriguing. By “participants in the study” does the author mean a randomized sample from a representative population? How many groups were included in the linguistic switch? What does it mean that group members were not fully treated as human?

This article appeared in a conservative journal to which I had a subscription. I was amazed that it was published. What do you think?
http://www.mmisi.org/ma/31_01/neumann.pdf

commonsense wrote:I came to the notions that follow after reading Oliver Burkeman's article:

Bigotry is emotional, not rational. Bigotry is a manifestation of fear, a feeling and not a thought. It has little to do with analogies, assumptions or stuff from the realm of cognition. Empathy is also a matter of feeling and not a matter of thought. Empathy requires heart, not mental gymnastics.

It's never crossed my mind to view bigotry as solely emotive. So now I'm wondering if bigotry can ever be rational? Can it ever be solely rational? Can we disagree against a culture, or ideology, with the 'violence' of thought? The hatred of socialists and communists, created mass paranoia and persecution of communists in the United States, post WWII. At what point did ideological dissention become bigotry? This is all just off the top of my head. Wondering what you might think.

ForCruxSake wrote:

commonsense wrote:I came to the notions that follow after reading Oliver Burkeman's article:

Bigotry is emotional, not rational. Bigotry is a manifestation of fear, a feeling and not a thought. It has little to do with analogies, assumptions or stuff from the realm of cognition. Empathy is also a matter of feeling and not a matter of thought. Empathy requires heart, not mental gymnastics.

It's never crossed my mind to view bigotry as solely emotive. So now I'm wondering if bigotry can ever be rational? Can it ever be solely rational? Can we disagree against a culture, or ideology, with the 'violence' of thought? The hatred of socialists and communists, created mass paranoia and persecution of communists in the United States, post WWII. At what point did ideological dissention become bigotry? This is all just off the top of my head. Wondering what you might think.

My thought, off the top of my head as well, is that ideological dissention, when practised by a bigot, is bigotry through and through. On the other hand, dissention when practised by a fervent philosopher, is pure delight.

My contention is that bigotry can be rational but only after fear comes into play. In the end, bigotry consists of fear and illogical thinking, disguised as rational thought.

commonsense wrote:

ForCruxSake wrote:

commonsense wrote:I came to the notions that follow after reading Oliver Burkeman's article:

Bigotry is emotional, not rational. Bigotry is a manifestation of fear, a feeling and not a thought. It has little to do with analogies, assumptions or stuff from the realm of cognition. Empathy is also a matter of feeling and not a matter of thought. Empathy requires heart, not mental gymnastics.

It's never crossed my mind to view bigotry as solely emotive. So now I'm wondering if bigotry can ever be rational? Can it ever be solely rational? Can we disagree against a culture, or ideology, with the 'violence' of thought? The hatred of socialists and communists, created mass paranoia and persecution of communists in the United States, post WWII. At what point did ideological dissention become bigotry? This is all just off the top of my head. Wondering what you might think.

My thought, off the top of my head as well, is that ideological dissention, when practised by a bigot, is bigotry through and through. On the other hand, dissention when practised by a fervent philosopher, is pure delight.

My contention is that bigotry can be rational but only after fear comes into play. In the end, bigotry consists of fear and illogical thinking, disguised as rational thought.

Sold.

ForCruxSake wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2017 10:51 pm Came across this article, today. Is it 'throwing light on' or 'going light on' empathy lacking bigots?

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... ?CMP=fb_gu

Thoughts?

I think some "bigots" have a lot of empathy. Empathy is also linked to the Logical thought process. People low on empathy tend to be illogical.

Now let us talk about the word "bigot". Bigot implies some kind of illogical bias against a person. Some of these bigots are not real bigots because their analysis is perfectly logical, not biased or bigoted, but it is socially convenient to call them bigots, just as it is socially convenient to call someone a homophobe, even if that person is not truly afraid of gays.

For example, someone may see black people, see them just laying around, listening to rap and smoking weed everyday and bullying each other everyday for no reason. They may have empathy for whites. They may see Africa, a deplorable war-state, and say...Hmm...maybe blacks aren't actually fit for whiteland, maybe race exists. So for the best interest of whites, they send blacks to Africa.

Or, it could be jealousy. Maybe they are Jealous blacks smoke weed everyday. Maybe they are sick of having to be a white and work. Maybe someone bullies gays because, gays get laid 24/7 and they don't get laid at all, so they view the gay lifestyle as unfair and a social injustice.

And what about Muslims? If one examines the muslim religion, one views how stupid it is and a social injustice. Imagine the world 1000 years from now where everyone is forced to be Muslim. If you had any empathy at all, you would not accept or tolerate the Muslim religion or bring it to America. However, if you had empathy, you would allow Atheist Arabs to enter this country. There is nothing wrong with Atheist Arabs and they should be allowed to enter America.