What limits to obstinate behavior against the majority you think is wrong?

With post 43, James closed the thread “Nazi sign stolen from Auschwitz gates” because the sign was recovered. There was an interesting (to me at least) discussion of ethics in progress there mainly between Quadraphonics and Norsefire, which I continue in this new thread. Here is a brief and very compressed review of how it developed:

In post 17, Norsefire asks: “Why is this sign so important” and get two very different answers:
(18) p-braine: “It's important for the same reason that preserving the entire concentration camp is important which is so that what happened there cannot be denied or forgotten.”
(19) SAM: “It’s the gift that keeps on giving” and she backs her POV with quote from Israel’s liberal newspaper, part of which is: “In addition to the one-time payment, {15,000€} the survivors are also entitled to a monthly allowance, which adds up to around 100 million Euros a year.”

(22)Norsefire: “I'm not necessarily saying it's not important, but it appears to be exceedingly convenient for the Jews, in my opinion.”
(I believe he is referring to benefits other than just the German government’s “guilt payments.”)
(23)James: “What is convenient? And why?”
(26)Quadraphonics: “It's "convenient" that people are reminded that millions of Jews were systematically eliminated?
Can one of the mods grow a pair of nuts and ban Norsefire, S.A.M. and Brian Foley now? This shit is degrading.”

I, Billy T, ask now: Would a Bedouin Memorial also be useful to remind people that Israel has annihilated a greater percentage of the desert Bedouins than Hitler did the Jews and occupied their lands without any payment? (Their old Ottoman deeds have no value in Israeli courts.) At least 200,000 Bedouins once roamed Sinai and Negev. Like Palestinians, many escaped / were driven / to other Arab land and ceased to be nomadic desert Bedouins. The few remaining in the desert are now confined in two or three concentration camps (called “enclosures” by Israel) on less than 2% of the Negev, where the soil is the poorest, so they are totally dependent upon Israel delivering food and water. Their extermination will be effectively completed in about one decade more as young Bedouin men can leave these enclosures to join the Israeli army. Thus the population of school age children at the largest of these enclosures will now fit in one school bus.

(27)Norsefire, answering James: “I am saying that, while the Holocaust was tragic, the Jews love to bring it up as an excuse for what they are doing in the 'Holy Land'. … Syrian Christians were genocided by the Turks in the early 20th; why doesn't anybody focus on that? … or what about the Gypsies and homosexuals? Why is it the Jews? Seems very convenient to me.”
(28) Norsefire, answering Quadraphonics: “How can you have a wonderful debate if you ban the other side?”
(29) Quadraphonics replying: “We aren't having a wonderful debate. We're being overrun by nasty racist ideologues who are obsessed with Jewish conspiracy theories.” Note this is the first name calling post.

(32) Norsefire, replying to Quad, who had defended his call (in 26) for banning by noting there were “endless reams of disgusting bigotry in support of such a recommendation” asks: “What is bigotry?”
(34)Quadraphonics: “A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices." This now bold definition is why I started this thread.

IMHO, James prematurely shut off discussion of this important ethical question (What is a bigot?).
I will use some of my own history as the tactical commander of the civil rights movement in Baltimore one summer:

By quad’s definition, I was a bigot as I obstinately and intolerantly held the very unpopular and disliked opinion that blacks should be allowed to sit down in restaurants serving whites. Furthermore, I was so dedicated to this politically incorrect and repulsive idea that I was willing to significantly destroy restaurants profits when I could.

The Civic Interest Group, already had several people in jail, and could not afford legal fees for more, so when the police arrived and ordered the integrated sit-ins groups to leave, we did and joined the picket line outside. Few would cross that line although some would spit on us. We did so much economic damage that after a couple of months, the Restaurant Association, switched positions and cut us a deal. They would use their influence with the Maryland State legislature to help get the “open to all” law passed and we eased off, at least on Sundays, when I estimated we cost each restaurant > $1,000 an hour in lost profits. On our best days, we effectively closed ~20 of Baltimore’s best restaurants. (And I believe generally reduced the number of people eating at resturants as no one knew where or when we would stike.)

SUMMARY: I refute Quadraphonic’s POV, and his quoted definition of a bigot. For me a bigot is one who attacks (even just verbally) another (or group) because of some characteristic or behavior over which they have no control. Such as being very short, stuttering, having black skin, being of another racial group, being homosexual, being physically deformed, etc.

Fortunately down thru history there have been enough of “Quad’s bigots” - obstinate and intolerant (non-compromising in their position) minority members to abolish slavery, debtor’s prisons, burning of witches or books, open restaurants to blacks, and at least limit the persecution of homosexuals, (In many places, more work is still needed here.) etc.

The main ethically question for me when you hold an unpopular minority POV obstinately and will not compromise it (intolerantly) is what right, if any, do you have to injure others opposing your POV?

I thought about that a lot while walking the picket lines or sitting at a restaurant table waiting for the police to arrive. My conclusion was that if you intentional, and obstinately break the law (or merely publicly confront the prevailing POV) then you must be willing to take the penalty the law imposes (or social rejection, e.g. be spit upon); however, any retribution for your acts must be non-permanent (no cutting off of your hands, etc.) and not more shocking to society than your behavior, which earned the punishment (e.g. no torture for supporting the right to pray to any God, or demanding return of democratic government under military dictatorships a cold -war era US helped to create in South America, etc.).

The questions for discussion in this thread are:
(1) Do you have the right to injure others to advance your obstinate uncompromising minority POV?
(2) If sometimes, “Yes” how is that right limited? (E.g. is never permitted to injure another person but OK to injure a corporation? For example, many years ago a boycott of Nestle was organized and eventually forced them to stop giving two cases of baby milk to African mothers of new born babies as they left the hospital. –Two case will dry up their breast milk and if at a hospital, they probably could afford to buy more. Nestle also falsely and knowingly gave the mothers literature indicating canned milk was better for the baby and bottles were the “modern way to nurse a baby.”)
(3) Under what circumstances, can you break the law (or society’s accepted behavior) and also try to escape from any punishment for doing so?
(4) Any other ethical questions associated with publically supporting your obstinate uncompromising, unpopular , minority POV.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Billy, this whole post of yours is confusing and jumbled and convoluted. It's also too damned wordy. But..... well, it's your thread, I guess.

Well, since you didn't ask the question properly, then I'm going to have to say that any person who has his freedoms guaranteed by the government has the "right" (the freedom) to injure anyone they wish. Yes, if caught, they might suffer the consequences, but they're certainly free to beat the shit outta' anyone or kill them. None of us have cops chained to us.

It's limited only by being caught by the cops.

Any and all that you wish. Our freedoms basically give us the "right" to do most anything ...as long as we're willing to accept the consequences.

***

Billy, I have a feeling that you're looking for more of a long, drawn-out, complicated, complex, confusing, convoluted, ethical, right n' wrong, liberal-doo-gooder answer, but that ain't comin' from me, that's for sure!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Baron Max

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That was not "my" definition. It's from wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry

"A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.

The correct use of the term requires the elements of obstinacy, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing devotion."

The "irrationality" qualifier there is important, I think, especially as it applies to your sit-in example. Although, that said, the question of whether one is bigoted or not seems somewhat secondary when you're already at the direct-action stage.

Well, that would certainly exhibit irrationality (owing to the lack of control) and animosity (since it's an attack), so that's already pretty close to satisfying the Wikipedia definition. Add in some repetitiveness (i.e., obstinacy), and you're there.

But I think that the qualifier about "lack of control" is spurious. There are plenty of other ways to be irrational in your relations to someone. For example, a great deal of bigotry is religious in nature, and I'd have a hard time calling religious affiliation something beyond personal control (at least amongst adults in free societies).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's one of the things that really bothers me about how people use the term "bigot" ...they seem to imply that bigotry necessarily involves injury of some kind rather than just plain, good ol' hatred. People can hate without actually acting on that hatred or dislike.

I think everyone should be entitled to hate whoever they want to hate. And, please remember, those who hate bigots are guilty of being a bigot!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I think the freakin' world is just chocked full of bigots ...and the state of world affairs and conflicts is evidence that I'm right.

Baron Max

 

Ethics (that is forum this is in as you seem not to have noticed) is often "confusing and jumbled and convoluted." Even what might seem like clear cases such as the Biblical injunction: "Thou shall not kill."

Most of my posts are too wordy - mainly because I try to be clear, not leave the reader to guess where short post is ambiguous. But to keep a focus, I did conclude with three brief and specific questions. You can consider all that came before them as "stage setting" if you like.

No I think I asked the ETHICS question I wanted to. You may have wanted me to ask about LEGAL questions. - Cops have little concern with ethics. Cops are supposed to enforce the law. There is a big difference between what is legal and what is ethical and usually the legal questions need not be "confusing and jumbled and convoluted" although courts do not always agree. BTW, the great US justice, Thurmond Marshall, I think it was, defined the LEGAL limits of your law given freedom, by noting that: Your freedom to swing your arms ends exactly where my nose begins." So legally, at least, I think he would answer my first question (do you ever have the right to injure others?) with a NO.

I bet Nazi Germany's gas chambers, Chrystal Night, confiscation of Jewish wealth and possessions, etc. were legal but certainly few would find them ethical.

As I understand it, the ancient Spartans did make it ethically OK to rob, lie, etc. provided you did not get caught. (By the law, I think.) Perhaps they did not distinguish much between ethical and legal but I sure do. In my sit-in days I knew I was breaking the law, but thought I was in the ethical minority and most of the society I lived in was not being ethical.

The real problem is the Islamic terrorists holds the same POV as I did, possibly even more strongly. Neither he, nor I, was acting in "self interest." Generally, when you break the law in your own self interest, I think you are not being ethical. It gets murky; i.e. complex, confusing, jumbled and convoluted, when you act to help others who are (in your opinion) suffering unjustly.

Thus, the ETHICAL is more complex, confusing, jumbled and convoluted than the legal question (what "rights" does the law give you) you seem focused on.

For example, did the French underground act ethically in WWII when it blew up a railroad bridge with train crossing it known to be caring German supplies (killing the innocent French train crew)?

I shared an office for several years with former member of the French underground. He was afraid to return to France as he was a wanted criminal. I told him that IMHO, he would be welcomed back as a hero; but he was still afraid as he helped rob Paris banks to finance the underground's efforts, and they had killed some innocent people, mainly bank guards, while robbing banks.

 

Ethics is subjective, so the answers will always depend on the person(s) and the situation.

As far as I can tell, ethics is simply something to argue about when people are bored with everything else. "I'm right and you're wrong." It seems as simple as that to me.

Were the French underground right (ethical) in blowing up the bridge? Yes and no. See?

Yeah, I know, ....I'm no fun. But I'm sure that others will oblige now that we've gotten things rolling a little. Most people just love to argue about such things because they can never be "proven" wrong!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Baron Max

 

Yes, I knew that. That is why in the summary I said Quad's QUOTED DEFINITION. I should have said this earlier and indicated your wiki source. I am sorry I did not initially make that clear. I can no longer edit so please any mod who can make OP’s line that starts with (34) read:
(34)Quadraphonics, quoting from Wiki,: “A bigot is …..

That is true. I am not really much concerned with whether or not one is a bigot – that is just a label word. My concern is focused on the difficult ethical questions that arise when your ethics are in conflict with the norms of your society, especially the first question: When, if ever, is it ethical to injury others?

See two new examples in my post 5 reply to the Barron about the French underground activities in WWII, where I think it is ethical, but I still have my doubts. In hindsight, I am sure I was ethical in economically damaging Baltimore restaurants.

In fact the day in my life that filled me with the most satisfaction, was not getting my Ph.D. after years of hard work, but years later in a nice Maryland a restaurant where about 5 small square tables were pushed together in the center and a large, somewhat noisy, black family was celebration something. The booth tables around the walls were filled mainly with whites who occasionally would glance at the blacks when the laughter hit a crescendo, but their glances if not with smiles were at least without any hate in their eyes. I almost exploded with silent pride – I made that possible, but I said nothing as I was with my step mother who still did not think it quite right that blacks could sit down in white restaurants.

I meant that the target of bigotry was the target because of something he had no control over (all my OP examples fit that case). You seem to be understanding “had no control over” to be applied to the bigot. I agree that in some cases the bigot has no real control over his POV. Often, organized religion gets a hold of the mind of a young child and is so effective in shaping it that even as an adult very few escape to a more liberal POV and those that do normally only do so as their educational processes later in life make them question these early teachings.

Often the bigot is against some behavior which can be controlled. For example, many homosexuals still stay in the closet, as they know many will not allow them the freedom of their innate sexual preference. Sao Paulo has one of the world’s largest Gay Rights parades each year. I think the purpose is twofold: (1) to encourage still closeted gays to "come out.” And (2) to show these bigots just how strong the Gays are - sort of “Think what you like, but don’t mess with us.” I am definitely heterosexual but I walked with them a few blocks one year.

Often there are cases we do not understand well enough to know the extent of control available. For example does an alcoholic have control after years of being an alcoholic, or is there now a controlling physiological dependency?

I tend to agree with the Barron (post 4) that one has the right to hate anyone they want to, even if irrational. For example the owner of an expensive fur coat may hate PETA people, somewhat rationally as they lessen the value of her coat and may even damage it. The Barron may hate all “do gooders” and think the world would be better off without them. By Wiki’s definition that would make him a bigot, but not by mine. Mine requires that the object of a bigot’s hate be unable to control the reason he is hated (have black skin etc.) For example, I hate loud talkers and smokers in the subway and people who spit or throw trash in the street, etc. They can control that, so I am not a bigot by my definition just because I hate these groups. I don’t act on this hate but really would like to shove my fist down their throat. I.e. it is a genuine hate, not just a strong dislike.

 

Okay, Billy, let's go with that idea, okay? So now that that's out of the way, let me ask you ......What the hell difference does it make to anything?

Okay, sure, it brings up a new thing in ethics to argue about, but....?

Baron Max

 

I'm not sure what "it" refers to, but if which definition of 'bigot," I think answer to your question is: "Dam little."

The whole question of ethics I am asking does not make much difference as people will pretty much do what they want, regardless of what they or their society consider to be "ethical."

To really effect / modify behavior, IMHO, they need to believe their behavior will cause consequences to them (usually unpleasant consequences) I.e. they need to believe in a vengeful God or an effective police force.

That is not entirely true as most of us have a concept of right & wrong that was drilled into us when were too small to ask why (or why not)?

For example, a brother and sister were traveling in Europe and staying in same hotel rooms. She was "on the pill" and he had a supply of condoms. After some discussion, they decided to try sex together. Afterwards neither felt good about this experiment. It made them feel guilty, wrong doers, yet rationally there was nothing wrong with this careful brother/sister sex. Some things are just deeply ingrained in us and violating them, even if convenient and rational, is not a good idea.

 

Yeah, that's true, Billy. But then the consequences of "diversification" of human cultures comes into play and all that becomes essentially useless because different cultures "drill" different ideals of right n' wrong into their children.

So, once again, with something like ethics and morality, we've proven that diversification in human societies causes major difficulties. Yet, isn't it odd that so many people here advocate diversity in human populations ...even as it's shown to cause such difficulties and conflicts?

Baron Max

 

So we should all be good little Chinese, with "social harmony" as the top goal, drilled into us at early age? Some how I don't think that was your wish, but they are humanity largest mass and we westerners with other conception of what is good can more easily change. Get rid of "individual creativity" etc. goals. As they say follow the golden rule. China has the gold so China makes the rules.

 

Bigotry, gravity, and logic

It is a particularly desperate ploy of various bigoted factions to justify themselves that they should accuse bigotry of those who stand against hatred and inequality. In the past, I have been accused of homophobia because I'm not the complete slut I wish I was; after all, I was such a bigot to recognize that one in four gay men in my age group was HIV+ and to acccount for my habit of having occasional unprotected sex with other men. Yes, I'm homophobic because I don't do this as much as my libido would like. Or we have those religious folks who, time and again, propose that atheism is a religion. The answer to that stupid question is really, really simple: for legal purposes, atheism is covered by the First Amendment, but beyond that it's no more a religion than my mother's Hobby Club when I was a kid.

The difference between bigotry and justice in civil rights issues, for instance, is simply logic.

As with the Catholic Church, one can develop an excruciatingly logical system that is nearly airtight as long as one accepts a broad range of presuppositions. If, however, as in the case of Catholic theology, those presuppositions cannot be demonstrated true, whence comes real logic? (I might remind that a syllogism need not reflect true circumstances to be accurate and proper.)

In the United States, we have asserted from the outset that all men are created equal. Of course, we won our revolution and immediately tossed that slogan to the wind, and in the years since, as we struggled to reclaim that sacred principle, we have always met resistance from those who lamented the discrimination and bigotry against privilege. For them, the only proper equality is the preservation of inequality. That is, the only correct answer to two plus two is seventeen.

In the present, take a look at a bigot like Max. His first response is both irrelevant and expected: Anything he has to put effort into reading is morally offensive; hell, he gets upset at me because I write reasonably proper citation notes. No, no, not because they're not perfect MLA, but because they're there in the first place. Apparently, telling people where you get your information is offensive.

And then his second response is to tell you what you think: "Well, since you didn't ask the question properly ...." Hey, it's your fucking question. You asked the question you wanted to ask, and he's afraid to answer it.

Where is there any logic in his argument? Only within the parameters he establishes. If you accept at the outset his presuppositions, then and only then will you be able to reach the "correct" answer.

Some might contest your application of the question to the situation, but that would be too wordy and jumbled a concept for a bigot like Max.

In the end, one of the curious attributes of bigots is how quickly they fall into jihad. That is, how fast are they going to beat a retreat, pausing only occasionally to throw a stone to remind you that they still think they're right even if they haven't the courage to face the hard questions.

Bigotry is nothing more than ignorance, cowardice, and greed. There is a reason it's not logical, else we're all bigots who accept that gravity exists.

 

You're a moderator at this site, yet you make such personal attacks as that? Is that a bit hypocritical, Tiassa?

Or does your authority as a moderator give you the right to break whatever rules you wish ....sorta' like you accuse politicians and cops of doing sometimes?

And I wonder, ....in your view, "diversity" does NOT include opinions and thoughts that are different to your own?

Baron Max

 

Well, Billy, isn't that precisely where human civilization is heading even as we speak? Aren't laws and rules, including ethics and morality, being seen, more and more, as all the same for all cultures and races and ethnicities?

Isn't that one of the main functions of the UN? Didn't the UN make a long list of such things as "Human Rights" ....as the same for all people, all cultures, all over the world?

And what of the Internet, Billy? Isn't it, also, serving somewhat the same function of getting all of us to thinking, feeling, acting, talking,...., all the same about everything? Movies? TV? News shows? Isn't that where they're all ultiimately taking us? Sameness ...all over the world.

And most people here, for example, strongly advocate diversity ...AND YET... at the same time, expect all of us to be good little liberal doo-gooders who love gays, etc? And anyone who is not a good little liberal doo-gooder gets ridicule and dennounced and cursed ...because people don't want "diversity", they want sameness - their sameness, not anyone else's.

Perhaps, Billy, but the UN has already usurped the "authority" and has already issued umpty-eleven lists of what's good, bad and ugly. And I don't think the Chinese had anythng to do with those lists, do you?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Baron Max