Doesn’t happen often but sometimes Facebook throws up something really amusing in a discussion. Once such instance happened when a liberal and fellow traveller of the anti – Trump hate mob tendency decided to redefine bigot. Now this lad likes to style himself a ‘scientist’ (physicist to be exact although his physics falls into the category that is all equations and mathematical speculation with not one demonstrable fact in sight. This is typical of modern science of course, theories which are impossible to test are treated as facts, while inconvenient facts that challenge the theory are ignored.
It seems that to such people the same rules apply when rewriting the dictionary so that the meanings of their favourite words (bigot, racist etc.) are changed to fit their warper world view.
GM Jackson wrote, yesterday (27 February 2017) at 6:11am ·
Is so-and-so really a bigot? These days it’s hard to tell. Bigots are more subtle and clever than they were in days of old when they could just come out and say, “Those people are subhuman scum and should be sent back to the shithole they came from.”
Now days suspected bigots qualify their statements with words like “most,” “some,” “nearly all.” They are careful not to say “all” or “every.” So how can we tell who is a bigot and who isn’t? Consider minority group X. Bigots always go negative on group X. They never ever list one positive thing group X has done.
Chances are excellent that group X has made major contributions to human progress and/or has done many acts of charity–but the guy who insists he’s “not racist!” will never go positive on group X. Never ever! If he did, his head would twist 360 degrees and he would hurl a fountain of green slime out of every orifice.
So next time you hear someone say, “I’m not a bigot,” ask a simple question: “Tell us what you love about group X.”
Ian Thorpe One cannot say groups are responsible for major contributions to human progress. Were ‘Catholics’ responsible for medieval art? Of course not, a small number of highly talented individuals were. Were ‘The English’ responsible for Shakespeare’s plays? N…See More
Like · Reply · 2 · 21 hrs
GM Jackson Oh, nice spin!
Yes, individuals do things too. But that does not mean they can’t cooperate with other individuals to achieve a common goal. Re: your examples. Catholics sponsored a lot of art and architecture. Shakespeare was English and it would be wrong of us to say that English are incapable of any great literary works. It would also be wrong to claim that Jews are incapable of inventing fractional reserve banking.
Like · Reply · 14 hrs · Edited
Ian Thorpe But nobody has said the English are incapable of any great literary works or that the Jewish community would be incapable of creating the banking system. And it is true that some Catholics sponsored works or art. So who is spinning now? The case is that these things are not ascribable to identity groups. When groups collaborate to achieve a common goal they are invariably groups of diverse individuals contributing a wide range of skills.
One of the problems with ‘liberal’ (or more correctly Marxist) thinking is that it lumps people together in identity groups and fails to see the diversity of individuals. Which is of course illiberal.
In another thread under the same post this rather amusing discussion unfolded between someone name Clarence who obviously has a good knowledge of history and some considerable life experience to inform his opinions and ‘Stef’ a liberal bigot who ‘identifies’ as a scientist and shows all the sheep like tendencies of that sub species:
What you are might not just be things you can’t change: you can change religions, for instance, but they tend to be labels someone else picks thinking they define you. And they don’t. Christian doesn’t make one a good person any more than it guarantees you’re a bad person. Televangelist, however, is something you chose that makes it clear what you, as an individual, worship most.
Stephanie Barr Most labels have nothing to do with anything you’ve done, but either factors you can’t change or aspects that really indicate nothing about who you are as a person (immigrant, transgender, particular religion, for example).
Being a rapist says a great deal about *who* you are as an individual.
Stephanie Barr Well, for the more part, I’ll have to disagree with you. There are some very compelling reasons to be an illegal immigrant and, UNLESS THEY ARE HURTING SOMEONE, I don’t put itin the same level AUTOMATICALLY, with a criminal act. Anymore than I equate prostitution to make sure your children are fed equates with a sex crime. While I’ll grant you not every sect is the same in any religion, to imply that Islam or Christianity equate with virtue or vice is, in my opinion, disingenuous.
Now, if you want to argue that you are unlikely to be a nice person as a member of Al Qaida or Westboro Baptist church, I can agree with that.
One’s choices are a reflection on who you are. However, someone on the outside, who was not faced with those same choices, should be careful about what they think that really says about that person.
That’s my point. Blanket statements without knowing the specific circumstances was the issue and I gave you an example.
Stephanie Barr I’ve read multiple books on Hiroshima. And we weren’t out to break the military. The military, in fact, argued against it. We were out to break Japan.
And we’re done here. Rules apply to everyone or they’re meaningless.
Stephanie BarrAnd none of it addresses my point. Even people who feel strongly that “murder is wrong” will stand up and defend i a blatant example of it under the “right” circumstances.
You can’t change the rules on what’s fair for your side does and then blame others who are also driven what by what they see as mitigating circumstances. …