Politics Is Bigotry Stifling Debate?

[Carringbush2010]

Bigotry certainly stifles good debate.

Consider that debate is a means to learning. If you are bigoted, you hold fast to your own viewpoints and refuse to consider others, regardless of how compelling they are. If that's the case, any debate, discussion or argument a bigot engages in will likely be extremely limited in scope, lacking critical thinking and is self-serving rather than seeking truth or understanding.

I still maintain that by and large bigotry is called out before it has a chance to 'stifle' anyone, bigots are a minority and those that are stifled by bigotry are an even smaller minuscule minority.

So ok then yes it does but to the point where it is questionable whether or not it merits discussion.

 

[ShanDog]

I still maintain that by and large bigotry is called out before it has a chance to 'stifle' anyone, bigots are a minority and those that are stifled by bigotry are an even smaller minuscule minority.

So ok then yes it does but to the point where it is questionable whether or not it merits discussion.

We'll have to disagree about th scope of it then. I see constant back and forth arguments on this board that are people just talking past each other, not interested in engaging genuinely at all. That's a soft form of bigotry really. And it ruins debate

 

[Carringbush2010]

We'll have to disagree about th scope of it then. I see constant back and forth arguments on this board that are people just talking past each other, not interested in engaging genuinely at all. That's a soft form of bigotry really. And it ruins debate

Mmmm, in an exact sense yeah I could agree. No offence but people talking past each other is far reaching to label as bigotry - technically correct but you'd be hard pressed to find many if any that say they received bigotry because someone replied in post but ignored the contextual point being made.

 

[ShanDog]

Mmmm, in an exact sense yeah I could agree. No offence but people talking past each other is far reaching to label as bigotry - technically correct but you'd be hard pressed to find many if any that say they received bigotry because someone replied in post but ignored the contextual point being made.

Honestly, I wish more people would use the correct meaning of it more. Seems like bigot is a label that gets thrown all too much in a similar way that fascist / Nazi / communist / racist etc are too. Too often a person is apparently a bigot for just having the wrong opinion these days (regardless of whether it was a well-considered piece of wrongthink or not).

 

[Carringbush2010]

Honestly, I wish more people would use the correct meaning of it more. Seems like bigot is a label that gets thrown all too much in a similar way that fascist / Nazi / communist / racist etc are too. Too often a person is apparently a bigot for just having the wrong opinion these days (regardless of whether it was a well-considered piece of wrongthink or not).

Oh I agree! The 'warrant' to use the term seems at a whiff! Anyway the dictionary definition does not really help either:



If the above is the case then anyone in disagreement is a bigot, I seriously doubt the op had this definition in mind............ was probably more of a contextual point of view rather than a black and white point of view.

 

[ShanDog]

Oh I agree! The 'warrant' to use the term seems at a whiff! Anyway the dictionary definition does not really help either:

View attachment 801797

If the above is the case then anyone in disagreement is a bigot, I seriously doubt the op had this definition in mind............ was probably more of a contextual point of view rather than a black and white point of view.

The intolerance part is the important thing - it's one thing to disagree with someone, but it's another to be intolerant of THEM for their opinion. That's what bigotry is.

 

[Carringbush2010]

The intolerance part is the important thing - it's one thing to disagree with someone, but it's another to be intolerant of THEM for their opinion. That's what bigotry is.

Agree again! The problem is how one views the 'intolerance'...................... widely varying views there!

 

[Patrick Bullet]

I've been keen to buy the same book for a little while now. Great post and thanks for the effort. I will likely attach this to the stickied posting quality thread and update it for the new year shortly.

Thanks ShanDog! Please use/edit whatever parts you like!

 

[Patrick Bullet]

While I acknowledge and generally embrace most of changing landscapes and agenda's in society across all topics and spectrum's, the MSM are sadly becoming a necessary evil.

1. Only 20 years ago the core values of journalism were based around producing reports based on facts, integrity, decency, impartiality and above all upholding professional standards to maintain the image and public trust of the media industry.
However today (mainly thanks to the proliferation of online digital media and social media platforms) in stark comparison if journalists don't produce articles or stories that create further opinion, debate and outrage then they are simply told to pursue another profession!

2. The fact that most people are simply too busy these days to look beyond 'headlines' also seems to be a very successful strategy for MSM. This is just not an occasional phenomenon it happens nearly every hour of every day.
While we are all used the sensational headlines that often include; 'Horrific', 'Shocking', Terrifying' etc. it's the increasing amount of misdirection in headlines that is the real issue and some of it is simply borderline fraud.
This is a soft example but refer below from several hours ago. If you have no context and/or weren't following the cricket, then from the headline and sub text you could easily assume this poor bastard has been involved in a horrific car accident or similar!
The 'fact' is, he simply suffered a calf muscle strain and will not play any further part in the current match and perhaps a few future matches...

3. It's also obvious the majority of MSM are often using 'freedom of the press' as their right to fabricate and misdirect in support of their specific narratives. This is mainly in relation to the evolving shift towards 'opinion' based content vs actual news/facts, which is there for all the see, even when it is cleverly disguised as 'news'.
Not so long ago the 'opinion' page in most newspapers was just that, one page usually next to the 'Letters to the editor'.
Whereas today, opinion pieces and related articles are nearly the entire newspaper which you'll find is mostly about some form of identity politics and/or with victim-hood narratives, and/or usually involving minority groups.

4. One final point is - I find it hard to believe the amount of exposure and coverage these predominately insignificant extreme left and right wing 'minority groups' get from MSM, but then I guess the various media outlets have determined it successfully attracts online clicks and views while promoting debate and outrage and must also sell newspapers...?

End of rant.

p.s. understand this was/is a bit off topic but the media does often influence peoples various views and beliefs.


View attachment 792979

It's all for clicks now because that's where the dosh comes from. I honestly believe that concerned citizens should feel obliged to take on one or two paid media subscriptions to try to combat this.