How does one prove they are not a bigot?

[Thurlor]

Given that the public discourse of the last few years seems to focus in some part on rooting out certain forms of bigotry I feel that this may be more important than it may seem at first.

Are claims of bigotry falsifiable?

How would a person disprove a claim of bigotry laid against them?

 

[Hadoblado]

I don't think it's falsifiable. Do you get called a bigot a lot?

 

[washti]

That's case sensitive. It's social realm = fuckin mess. What is contexts of accusations? What are arguments for bigotry?
You have to be more specific. If you don't believe in generic - one solution fits all - type of answer, else....

 

[Thurlor]

@Hadoblado

I can't remember ever having been called any kind of bigot. But it seems that if an accusation of bigotry is unfalsifiable that it could easily be weaponised and deployed against anyone, especially non-conformists (which INTP's tend to be to some extent).


@washti

You are correct to point out that any counter arguments are context specific (though they could probably be broken down into classes/types of accusations and counter arguments). What I am really asking is whether or not an accusation of bigotry (an unfalsifiable claim) can ever be succesfully argued against.

 

[Hadoblado]

Yes, that is most certainly the case. The flipside of this is that politically energised bigots have enormous maneuvering room to screen themselves from criticism and to normalise their views.

IMO you don't have much to worry about if you never face these accusations.

Personally I find it a little bit silly that people are more worried about being called bigot than they are about the existence of actual hate groups, but I guess we're going to focus on the things that affect us.

 

[Cognisant]

bigot
/ˈbɪɡət/

noun
noun: bigot; plural noun: bigots

1. a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.

That's the dictionary meaning but I think in the modern parlance it's synonymous with intolerance in general or more specifically intolerance of a specific group of people, particularly regarding their appearance or sexual preferences.

Ultimately it's just another poorly defined and broadly stigmatized label that people throw around to justify disregarding their opposition outright, which is poor form but when your opposition won't listen to reason what else can you do, punch them?

 

[Hadoblado]

Merriam Webster's is more in line with how I understand it:

Definition of bigot

: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

But even then it seems a bit off by how some people use it. I do think this is a useful way to define it because it puts an emphasis on behaviour, which is something people have control of.
I don't think it lacks value as a label. I think "don't be a bigot" is a useful prescription that should go without saying but somehow doesn't.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

I always thought it meant someone who is absurdly and overtly malignant in general, specifically regarding identity such as race and sexual orientation. Not too far off, but this widens the umbrella.

Is it possible to be bigoted towards bigots? It seems to me like you can just claim they are practicing 'reverse bigotry' and they will be dumbfounded and put into the same situation you are in. They will then clarify why they are not a bigot and you will better see how they define bigot, at least what is not one. If they tell you you're a bigot because you hold x belief and you disagree, then that's where the conversation should go.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Yeah agree it is easier to just tell people what you think is wrong specifically than using the ultimate bigot label.
Putting people into a box can make people act exactly as is expected inside the box, or even create optics that make them seem like the box even if they really do not fit.

 

[BurnedOut]

The claim itself occurs when your behavior is surfeit. This is not a reductive argument because to assume that the ubiquitous man is egregiously irrational and unthinking is wrong. People are generally rational. Therefore, in circumstances where you do get attacked by the accusation of 'bigotry', it is bound to be valid because your behavior is impassioned to the extent of being seen as 'fully out of passion'.

If someone does it otherwise and when you know that you are not an zesty adherent of a certain something, then it is bullshit.