T Nation

Am I a Bigot?

I was having dinner last night and at the end for some reason I stated that I had no respect for a certain group of people.

That they are used to kill in name of their religion an that the rest of people that belong to that religion are used to say that they have nothing to do with that…

My rationale is quite simple: it is much easier to say that I have nothing to do with that and be a “partner” in all that killing that trying to do something about it, to be responsible and gutsy

That if someone started killing people and using the fact that they are Brazilian; I’d be the first one to do something to stop them, instead of just saying that I have nothing to do with that and that has nothing to do with being Brazilian…
My whole point is that if you are all part of the same group, you have the responsibility to police your own group and that if in case someone start some sort of rogue activities you have the right/power to do something to stop those activities in name of the group, instead of just trying to excuse yourself and try to dissociate of those people because after all you still are part of the same group to start with.

I’d love to hear you questions/responses.

Agreed. If you choose to identify yourself with a group that has certain beliefs, either stand up for them or disassociate from the group. I’m not sure if no Muslims have taken action against terrorists though.

[quote]warlock wrote:
I was having dinner last night and at the end for some reason I stated that I had no respect for a certain group of people.

That they are used to kill in name of their religion an that the rest of people that belong to that religion are used to say that they have nothing to do with that…

My rationale is quite simple: it is much easier to say that I have nothing to do with that and be a “partner” in all that killing that trying to do something about it, to be responsible and gutsy

That if someone started killing people and using the fact that they are Brazilian; I’d be the first one to do something to stop them, instead of just saying that I have nothing to do with that and that has nothing to do with being Brazilian…
My whole point is that if you are all part of the same group, you have the responsibility to police your own group and that if in case someone start some sort of rogue activities you have the right/power to do something to stop those activities in name of the group, instead of just trying to excuse yourself and try to dissociate of those people because after all you still are part of the same group to start with.

I’d love to hear you questions/responses.
[/quote]

Prejudice means to pre judge. I think it is wrong to pre judge all Muslims but ok to pre judge all Taliban. Just so you don�??t confuse the two.

[quote]warlock wrote:
My whole point is that if you are all part of the same group, you have the responsibility to police your own group and that if in case someone start some sort of rogue activities you have the right/power to do something to stop those activities in name of the group, instead of just trying to excuse yourself and try to dissociate of those people because after all you still are part of the same group to start with. [/quote]

If by “biggot”, you mean “big bigot” then yes. Probably.

I don’t know what group you’re referring to, but it’s safe to say that most of the “rogue activities” are committed by males/18-35 yrs old/humans. If you share one of those attributes, then you fall in that same group and have as much responsibility to “do something to stop those activities” than anyone else. Lead by example.

We could all be doing more to stop “rogue activities”, and if you show me someone in my neighborhood who’s trying to commit a crime, you can bet your ass that I’ll do everything in my power to stop the bastard and bring him/her to justice. I also know for a fact that the median in any statistically significant group would behave the same way.

Crimes are committed for power or money. That ideology, religion, ethnicity or nationalism is used as a blanket excuse to carry out those crimes do not change a thing.

I am a fervent believer in democracy, and when I see “rogue activities” commited in the name of that ideology I do not anymore responsible than anyone else. Granted, some might feel a bit of guilt given that they voted for those criminals and are financing them through taxes, but I don’t think Greeks are feeling a shred of guilt.

Get it?

Yes

Bigot you are.

You cannot police every person that shares a trait with you. Don’t join associations that do things you dislike. Report crimes if you see them, intervene if necessary. Beyond that, white people have no obligation to make sure other white people behave well. The same thing with blacks, Brazilians, or anyone else. As far as I am concerned, if you are a Muslim and a good citizen, you do not owe anyone but God an explanation of your faith.

Ya youre a dickweed. Leave the policing to the police. Im jewish, that doesnt give me authority to tell others in my “group” what to do. This is America, and if you cant handle the fact that we are one people, then you can get out!

[quote]lixy wrote:
warlock wrote:
My whole point is that if you are all part of the same group, you have the responsibility to police your own group and that if in case someone start some sort of rogue activities you have the right/power to do something to stop those activities in name of the group, instead of just trying to excuse yourself and try to dissociate of those people because after all you still are part of the same group to start with.

If by “biggot”, you mean “big bigot” then yes. Probably.

I don’t know what group you’re referring to, but it’s safe to say that most of the “rogue activities” are committed by males/18-35 yrs old/humans. If you share one of those attributes, then you fall in that same group and have as much responsibility to “do something to stop those activities” than anyone else. Lead by example.

We could all be doing more to stop “rogue activities”, and if you show me someone in my neighborhood who’s trying to commit a crime, you can bet your ass that I’ll do everything in my power to stop the bastard and bring him/her to justice. I also know for a fact that the median in any statistically significant group would behave the same way.

Crimes are committed for power or money. That ideology, religion, ethnicity or nationalism is used as a blanket excuse to carry out those crimes do not change a thing.

I am a fervent believer in democracy, and when I see “rogue activities” commited in the name of that ideology I do not anymore responsible than anyone else. Granted, some might feel a bit of guilt given that they voted for those criminals and are financing them through taxes, but I don’t think Greeks are feeling a shred of guilt.

Get it?[/quote]

I agree with Lixy. You ARE a bigot. If you’re referring to Muslims, then you’re assuming a very large group of people have the same attitudes as a group of mostly despised, overractive extremists. Bigotry is ignorance, so soak it up big guy.

No, you’re not a bigot. A bigot would say, “I hate black people.” When asked why, a bigot would say, “I dunno; 'cause they’re black, man. They’re stealing our country!” The point is that a bigot does not have any rationale for his or her beliefs.

You at least have a rationale, though it may not be a good one to some people. Moreover, you are giving people in the selected classification an “out.” A bigot hates black people, period. If you are black, you can’t do anything about it. You are simply saying that you hate people in group X who kill in the name of religion or people in X who may not kill, but do nothing about the others in X who do. But by that rationale, a person in X who DID do something about that is cool. This is not bigotry.

It would be like someone saying, “I hate all blacks who are lazy and do nothing to better their situation other than to complain about white people oppressing them.” If true, then that person would be totally cool with a black person who rose above poverty and made something of him or herself. Again, not bigotry.

I do find it incredibly interesting, however, that the OP did not mention Muslims, yet that is what most people in this thread assumed.

[quote]SSC wrote:

I agree with Lixy. You ARE a bigot. If you’re referring to Muslims, then you’re assuming a very large group of people have the same attitudes as a group of mostly despised, overractive extremists. Bigotry is ignorance, so soak it up big guy.[/quote]

You kind of just made the OP’s point, though. If they really are a small group of “despised, overractive extrmists,” then why isn’t there more widespread condemnation of their actions among Muslims?

At some point you can’t keep saying that they are despised extremists when few if any even pause to speak out against it. When that happens, it may lead some to believe that a few in the group are acting out to express beliefs silently held by the vast majority of the group as a whole.

To give you some examples, think of Abu Ghraib and Guantanomo. No one could ever be confused about the fact that the entire Western world, let alone popular opinion in the U.S., was/is very upset about what went on/is going on in those places.

You can watch the news for five minutes and draw that impression. The same cannot be said about Muslims and the atrocities that have been perpetuated by “extremists” in that religion on virtually every continent in the world.

[quote]eic wrote:
You are simply saying that you hate people in group X who kill in the name of religion or people in X who may not kill, but do nothing about the others in X who do. But by that rationale, a person in X who DID do something about that is cool. This is not bigotry. [/quote]

That’s not quite what Warlock wrote. Here’s a quote from him/her: “that if you are all part of the same group, you have the responsibility to police your own group”.

That implies, until specified otherwise, that as long as member that claim association to your group behave in a bad manner, he will hold you and everyone else in said group responsible. Which is textbook bigotry.

I agree with your point, but you may want to re-read the OP’s post.

I believe the context and location where you say such statement will determine whether you’re a bigot or not. If you say it in a country that has a recent history of oppression by whites on blacks, then there are good chances most people would consider you a bigot. You could have easily said “I hate all people who are lazy and do nothing to better their situation other than to complain about other people oppressing them.” But you chose to make it about race.

There are good chances that’s what he was referring to.

Yes you are a bigot and yes the Muslim world needs to do a better job of rejecting the assholes instead of protecting them.

[quote]lixy wrote:
eic wrote:
You are simply saying that you hate people in group X who kill in the name of religion or people in X who may not kill, but do nothing about the others in X who do. But by that rationale, a person in X who DID do something about that is cool. This is not bigotry.

That’s not quite what Warlock wrote. Here’s a quote from him/her: “that if you are all part of the same group, you have the responsibility to police your own group”.

That implies, until specified otherwise, that as long as member that claim association to your group behave in a bad manner, he will hold you and everyone else in said group responsible. Which is textbook bigotry.

I agree with your point, but you may want to re-read the OP’s post.

It would be like someone saying, “I hate all blacks who are lazy and do nothing to better their situation other than to complain about white people oppressing them.” If true, then that person would be totally cool with a black person who rose above poverty and made something of him or herself. Again, not bigotry.

I believe the context and location where you say such statement will determine whether you’re a bigot or not. If you say it in a country that has a recent history of oppression by whites on blacks, then there are good chances most people would consider you a bigot. You could have easily said “I hate all people who are lazy and do nothing to better their situation other than to complain about other people oppressing them.” But you chose to make it about race.

I do find it incredibly interesting, however, that the OP did not mention Muslims, yet that is what most people in this thread assumed.

There are good chances that’s what he was referring to.[/quote]

In retrospect, I think you’re right about the OP’s post. My reading was not strictly accurate. The policing comment goes too far, but I think I captured what he meant to say.

How do you know he wasn’t talking about Irish catholics and the IRA?

I’d prefer to not talk specifically about any group and keep the conversation as open as possible.

My goal is not to offend or to blame even though I am doing it.

I just want to evaluate my thoughts with your help as I believe that this type of generalization and blanket statements that I am making most of the time are just a easy way out instead of deep thinking and analisys.

Thank you so much for your replies and please let’s keep the level and respect for different opinions

Yes.

BTW doesn’t Brazil have one of the highest murder rates in the world? Sounds like you need to start policing “your” group.

[quote]Testy1 wrote:
Yes.

BTW doesn’t Brazil have one of the highest murder rates in the world? Sounds like you need to start policing “your” group.[/quote]

Okay, this shit is getting ridiculous. Assuming the OP is talking about Islam, the key you guys are missing is that the Muslim extremists ARE KILLING IN THE NAME OF ISLAM and purport to do so FOR ISLAM!

I live in Nebraska. If a Nebraska guy started killing people, I have no duty to publicly speak out against it.

But if a Nebraska guy started killing people and said that he was doing it because Nebraska Cornhusker fans are the greatest in the world and all other college football fans should bow down before them, I would feel obliged to step forward and say, “Look, this guy’s a nut. No one else feels this way. Sorry college football fans.”

Do you guys get it now? You look ridiculous when you say, “Humans are killing others. Maybe you should police THAT group!” Humans aren’t killing in the name of humans as a “movement.”

The fact that some people in a larger group are doing things ON BEHALF OF that group should make others in that group step up and say something. If they don’t, the rest of the world is free to assume that they tacitly approve and should be able to make this assumption without being labeled a bigot. Case closed. End of story.

[quote]eic wrote:
Testy1 wrote:
Yes.

BTW doesn’t Brazil have one of the highest murder rates in the world? Sounds like you need to start policing “your” group.

Okay, this shit is getting ridiculous. Assuming the OP is talking about Islam, the key you guys are missing is that the Muslim extremists ARE KILLING IN THE NAME OF ISLAM and purport to do so FOR ISLAM!

I live in Nebraska. If a Nebraska guy started killing people, I have no duty to publicly speak out against it. But if a Nebraska guy started killing people and said that he was doing it because Nebraska Cornhusker fans are the greatest in the world and all other college football fans should bow down before them, I would feel obliged to step forward and say, “Look, this guy’s a nut. No one else feels this way. Sorry college football fans.”

Do you guys get it now? You look ridiculous when you say, “Humans are killing others. Maybe you should police THAT group!” Humans aren’t killing in the name of humans as a “movement.”

The fact that some people in a larger group are doing things ON BEHALF OF that group should make others in that group step up and say something. If they don’t, the rest of the world is free to assume that they tacitly approve and should be able to make this assumption without being labeled a bigot. Case closed. End of story.[/quote]

No, you miss the point. Not all Muslims belong to the same group because they are Muslim. There are many different sects, just like Christianity.

I have heard many Muslims denounce the extremist and say they don’t represent them, but of course that is not publicized. I don’t know how many Muslims there are in Nebraska, but there are a shitload in Michigan. There was no dancing in the streets here after 9/11.

[quote]eic wrote:
Testy1 wrote:
Yes.

BTW doesn’t Brazil have one of the highest murder rates in the world? Sounds like you need to start policing “your” group.

Okay, this shit is getting ridiculous. Assuming the OP is talking about Islam, the key you guys are missing is that the Muslim extremists ARE KILLING IN THE NAME OF ISLAM and purport to do so FOR ISLAM!

I live in Nebraska. If a Nebraska guy started killing people, I have no duty to publicly speak out against it. But if a Nebraska guy started killing people and said that he was doing it because Nebraska Cornhusker fans are the greatest in the world and all other college football fans should bow down before them, I would feel obliged to step forward and say, “Look, this guy’s a nut. No one else feels this way. Sorry college football fans.”

Do you guys get it now? You look ridiculous when you say, “Humans are killing others. Maybe you should police THAT group!” Humans aren’t killing in the name of humans as a “movement.”

The fact that some people in a larger group are doing things ON BEHALF OF that group should make others in that group step up and say something. If they don’t, the rest of the world is free to assume that they tacitly approve and should be able to make this assumption without being labeled a bigot. Case closed. End of story.[/quote]

Again, that is not what what the OP is arguing. His words were that it is your responsibility to “police” them, not merely “say something”. He wrote, and I quote “instead of just trying to excuse yourself and try to dissociate of those people.”

Can you see the difference? Good.

The situation would be different if, say the “rogue” individuals were committing the mischief on said group’s dime or that they were publically elected. In that case, it does seem appropriate to, not only distance one’s self vocally, but also militate against what is done in the name of one’s country/ideology/religion. With me so far? Let’s move one.

The shepherd in the outskirts of Baghdad has probably not heard of the US grassroots movement opposing the bombing and invasion of his country before it even began. He may be tempted to give in to bigotry, and assume that Americans do not speak up or commit acts of civil disobedience to protest what’s done in their name. Furthermore, the only Americans he’s interacted with were shooting bullets as he was chasing one of his sheep that escaped from the herd.

He may have heard first-hand horrific accounts of post-invasion Abu-Ghraib, Mahmoudiya, Fallujah, etc. Does that make him a bigot? I’ll say yes. Even though said horrors were committed in the name of Americans and on their dime, assuming tacit complicity remains idiotic.

For all we know, Warlock’s interaction with Muslims could be limited to a school bully or a criminal who decided that hurting innocents in the name of Islam is an effective way to spread it around. He may be looking through his local paper expecting to find a wave of caped Muslims swooping Toronto night to fight crime. He may be amalgamating nationalistic and independentist struggles with religious ones.

Could Muslims do more in order to root out the evil extremists?

In certain countries, yes! From the Saudis exporting Wahabism with their petro-dollars to Waziristan and the haven it provides for Al-Qaeda, you can lay the blame on those. But to associate all Muslims with them is pure bigotry. Most Muslims live in the (secular) republic of Indonesia anyway.

Radical Islamism is on the rise, there is no denying that. Bigotry is not only morally reprehensible but it is also feeding the movement. If you have an Asian fetish, and a Japanese women is raped, do you go out shouting that you do not tacitly approve of the act?

Do you take it upon yourself to stop people in the street and ask them if they’re about to rape an Asian girl in an effort to “police” them? If you’re a Christian and some pastor starts burning Harry Potter books, do you stop him? Would I assume that you tacitly approve of a pastor preaching against homosexuality just because you happen to share the same faith?

A crime is a crime, and the responsibility is shared by all of us to stop those who transgress the law. If you are going to assume that a person is tacitly approving a crime when you haven’t even bothered asking him/her, then you are bad-faithed to start with. And singling out a group in doing so, makes you a bigot. There’s no going around it!

[quote]eic wrote:
No, you’re not a bigot. A bigot would say, “I hate black people.” When asked why, a bigot would say, “I dunno; 'cause they’re black, man. They’re stealing our country!” The point is that a bigot does not have any rationale for his or her beliefs.
[/quote]

They always have rationale for their beliefs. It’s just predicated on factually incorrect information, and plagued with logical errors.