18 Comments

"A working definition of a bigoted factual claim should be any claim, whether true or not, that is intended to have the effect of inducing disgust or hatred in members of another group."

So true factual statements about the Ku Klux Klan or Nazis are bigoted if they are offered with an intent to evoke disgust?

Isn't it possible that some groups really merit disgust while others do not?

Expand full comment

What bigotry tries to do is to end the discussion there and then. Whether what is said is true or not is immaterial - the objective is to stop further debate, stop further complexity.

"There are a lot of jews in the media industry", "women are not as good at maths as men" - both true (on average!), both often used to end the conversation.

Bigotry is not so much in what you say, but in why you say it, and how.

Expand full comment

If a true statement can be called bigotry,then bigotry can be justifiable.This probably isn't what you wanted to say,but it is the only response a "non-liar" couldreasonably make. Dishonesty is worse thanbigotry in my world-view. Dishonesty should beone of the worst moral failings of anyone whoconsiders himself a scientist, or just a decentperson.

Expand full comment

Tim, I have very limited abilities to change the style here. If someone wants to volunteer as webmaster, maybe they could do more.

Expand full comment

Could you change the comments formatting so that the dotted line is after the poster's name, instead of before it? Would make it easier to follow the flow :-)

Expand full comment

David, I suggest you use "speech act" instead of "statement". The latter term includes the former meaning, but also others. A fact, or a statement of fact, devoid of context, cannot be bigoted, even by your argument here. It's the speech act which is bigoted.

Robin, the definition of "bigoted", as applied to language, seems to me to match how David is using it here. The definitions you offer are of "bigot", or "bigoted" as applied to people, which is a substantially different sense than "bigoted" applied to actions or speech. Also, your links are broken.

Expand full comment

Robin,My claim is that there is an important category of statements that are objectionable because of their invidiousness, even if they are true. I'm not married to calling that category of statements "bigoted," although no other word comes to mind that would be commonly understood.

James,This is exactly the sort of thing that I had in mind. The idea that there are features of Muslim cultures that, at this moment in time, make them particularly aggressive is something that, given the stakes, Enlightenment-based societies have to take seriously if they are to survive. But your Professor's list doesn't serve this purpose. Rather, it exists to transmit the message that Muslims are savages and so anything we do to them is OK.

Expand full comment

I once saw on a professor's door (not at my college) two lists. The first was of all the Jewish Nobel Prize winners, the second was of all the Muslim Nobel Prize winners. Below the lists were the total number of Jewish people in the world and the total number of Muslim people in the world.

Although I imagine the lists were factually accurate, their posting seemed bigoted.

Expand full comment

You don't get to define commonly used words as you wish. Google gives these three definition of "bigotry":

the intolerance and prejudice of a bigot

A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own.

Prejudice carried to the extreme of overt hatred, often carried to the point of violence.

Intolerance is not hate, and prejudice is widely defined as a biased evaluation.

Expand full comment

"A working definition of a bigoted factual claim should be any claim, whether true or not, that is intended to have the effect of inducing disgust or hatred in members of another group."

So true factual statements about the Ku Klux Klan or Nazis are bigoted if they are offered with an intent to evoke disgust?

Isn't it possible that some groups really merit disgust while others do not?

Expand full comment

What bigotry tries to do is to end the discussion there and then. Whether what is said is true or not is immaterial - the objective is to stop further debate, stop further complexity.

"There are a lot of jews in the media industry", "women are not as good at maths as men" - both true (on average!), both often used to end the conversation.

Bigotry is not so much in what you say, but in why you say it, and how.

Expand full comment

If a true statement can be called bigotry,then bigotry can be justifiable.This probably isn't what you wanted to say,but it is the only response a "non-liar" couldreasonably make. Dishonesty is worse thanbigotry in my world-view. Dishonesty should beone of the worst moral failings of anyone whoconsiders himself a scientist, or just a decentperson.

Expand full comment

Tim, I have very limited abilities to change the style here. If someone wants to volunteer as webmaster, maybe they could do more.

Expand full comment

Could you change the comments formatting so that the dotted line is after the poster's name, instead of before it? Would make it easier to follow the flow :-)

Expand full comment

David, I suggest you use "speech act" instead of "statement". The latter term includes the former meaning, but also others. A fact, or a statement of fact, devoid of context, cannot be bigoted, even by your argument here. It's the speech act which is bigoted.

Robin, the definition of "bigoted", as applied to language, seems to me to match how David is using it here. The definitions you offer are of "bigot", or "bigoted" as applied to people, which is a substantially different sense than "bigoted" applied to actions or speech. Also, your links are broken.

Expand full comment

Robin,My claim is that there is an important category of statements that are objectionable because of their invidiousness, even if they are true. I'm not married to calling that category of statements "bigoted," although no other word comes to mind that would be commonly understood.

James,This is exactly the sort of thing that I had in mind. The idea that there are features of Muslim cultures that, at this moment in time, make them particularly aggressive is something that, given the stakes, Enlightenment-based societies have to take seriously if they are to survive. But your Professor's list doesn't serve this purpose. Rather, it exists to transmit the message that Muslims are savages and so anything we do to them is OK.

Expand full comment