4 ms·
Thank you for using the correct definition of "bigotry." The general population seems to confuse "bigot" only with "racist" or "sexist," for some reason.
by brandonmenc 9y ago
Thank you for using the correct definition of "bigotry."
The general population seems to confuse "bigot" only with "racist" or "sexist," for some reason.
- maxerickson 9y agoThey didn't though. Williamson wasn't fired because the Atlantic readers hate white conservative opinion writers, he was fired because Atlantic readers aren't very interested in his particular views.
- mieseratte 9y agoWhich is a textbook definition of bigotry. They're intolerant of, thus do not want to read, his views.
- NLips 9y agoUninterested != intolerant You can scream your opinion on topic X all day long, but no one has to listen. That doesn't make them intolerant.
- mieseratte 9y agoThey're not interested because they want an echo-chamber. This is just intolerance, aka bigotry, with extra steps. It wasn't as if the man's writings were just panned. It was a typical social justice morality crusade.
- sgift 9y ago> This is just intolerance, aka bigotry, with extra steps. Here we have the classic case of interpreting a definition so loose that it gets useless. Everyone is intolerant of something. I'm intolerant of murderers, so by that textbook definition I'm a bigot, but then everyone would be a bigot and we end up with a synonym for "human" - Is that helpful in a discussion?
- humanrebar 9y agoYou are equating being pro-life and unconventionally anti-execution with being a murderer.
- mieseratte 9y agoNo, this isn't a case of that. This is the classic Social Justice Jihadi pillorying someone with an opinion that isn't on the approved list. The man was a writer for a week and was removed because he committed a thought crime. You're just being needlessly obtuse.
- weberc2 9y agoHe was employed for what, a week? How did The Atlantic's readership find him uninteresting in that amount of time? And anyway, his hiring made quite an uproar with many of the Atlantic's readership, suggesting they were _very_ interested, but also _very_ intolerant to the end that he was fired. The "uninterested" line doesn't float.
- strictnein 9y agoWhat you're saying would make sense if he was there for three years, as opposed to, what, three days?
- maxerickson 9y agoIt's still not really "intolerant" to choose not to elevate a particular viewpoint. People saying Williamson shouldn't be allowed to publish anything anywhere are obviously being intolerant. People saying they'd rather not subscribe to a publication that pays him to expound on vile views? Meh.
- tntn 9y agoWould you mind clarifying which vile views you are referring to?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- strictnein 9y agoThe Twitter mob that got him fired != the Atlantic's subscriber base.
- jhpriestley 9y agoThe dictionary definition simply isn't accurate to modern usage. 19th century uses of "bigot" are mostly about what we would call a "religious zealot" or "fundamentalist". By the 21st century, most "bigot" references are closer to "xenophobe". It seems to have taken on the meaning of "racist or sexist or homophobic etc.," a generic term for anyone with prejudiced views. This semantic drift is convenient for those who would like to equivocate between "ideologue" and "xenophobe" and pretend that they are basically the same thing, or necessarily as bad as one another.