Is it understandable to be bigoted sometimes?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for LostVoyager
LostVoyager

385

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 LostVoyager
Member since 2012 • 385 Posts

I mean, if a woman gets raped is it understandable if she hates men for a while?

If someone gets messed with by a guy who just happens to be Jewish wouldn't it be understandable if that person hates Jewish people for a while?

I am not saying that I and anyone who is like this are perfect but I am just saying is the bigotry mitigated by the circumstances?

I mean for instance if someone in the middle east loses family members as "collateral damage" is it somewhat understandable that they are bigoted against Americans for instance? Or try to scapegoat some group or do you believe that it is not circumstances that shape the individual?

Avatar image for always_explicit
always_explicit

3379

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#2 always_explicit
Member since 2007 • 3379 Posts

Its not my business to understand the thoughts, feelings or rationale of other people. I feel If I attempted to understand everybody I met who held an opinion I wouldnt get very much done at all. I sincerely hope people do not waste their time trying to understand me. That really would be a tragic waste of time.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

178810

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 178810 Posts

No. Acts are created by individuals.

Avatar image for Grimdalus
Grimdalus

135

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 Grimdalus
Member since 2013 • 135 Posts

No. Bigotry should be censored by the government.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

178810

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5  Edited By LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 178810 Posts

@Grimdalus said:

No. Bigotry should be censored by the government.

No. Government should not become so draconian that individuals lose rights.

Avatar image for Grimdalus
Grimdalus

135

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 Grimdalus
Member since 2013 • 135 Posts

@LJS9502_basic:

Read On contradiction by Mao.

Avatar image for BiancaDK
BiancaDK

19092

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 35

User Lists: 0

#7 BiancaDK
Member since 2008 • 19092 Posts

@Grimdalus: your argument is invalid until you've read

Avatar image for Grimdalus
Grimdalus

135

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8  Edited By Grimdalus
Member since 2013 • 135 Posts

@BiancaDK: Since people are Lazy, I will have to link the piece of work for them.

The question of the struggle of opposites includes the question of what is antagonism. Our answer is that antagonism is one form, but not the only form, of the struggle of opposites.

In human history, antagonism between classes exists as a particular manifestation of the struggle of opposites. Consider the contradiction between the exploiting and the exploited classes. Such contradictory classes coexist for a long time in the same society, be it slave society, feudal society or capitalist society, and they struggle with each other; but it is not until the contradiction between the two classes develops to a certain stage that it assumes the form of open antagonism and develops into revolution. The same holds for the transformation of peace into war in class society.

Before it explodes, a bomb is a single entity in which opposites coexist in given conditions. The explosion takes place only when a new condition, ignition, is present. An analogous situation arises in all those natural phenomena which finally assume the form of open conflict to resolve old contradictions and produce new things.

It is highly important to grasp this fact. It enables us to understand that revolutions and revolutionary wars are inevitable in class society and that without them, it is impossible to accomplish any leap in social development and to overthrow the reactionary ruling classes and therefore impossible for the people to win political power. Communists must expose the deceitful propaganda of the reactionaries, such as the assertion that social revolution is unnecessary and impossible. They must firmly uphold the Marxist-Leninist theory of social revolution and enable the people to understand that social revolution is not only entirely necessary but also entirely practicable, and that the whole history of mankind and the triumph of the Soviet Union have confirmed this scientific truth.

However, we must make a concrete study of the circumstances of each specific struggle of opposites and should not arbitrarily apply the formula discussed above to everything. Contradiction and struggle are universal and absolute, but the methods of resolving contradictions, that is, the forms of struggle, differ according to the differences in the nature of the contradictions. Some contradictions are characterized by open antagonism, others are not. In accordance with the concrete development of things, some contradictions which were originally non-antagonistic develop into antagonistic ones, while others which were originally antagonistic develop into non-antagonistic ones.

As already mentioned, so long as classes exist, contradictions between correct and incorrect ideas in the Communist Party are reflections within the Party of class contradictions. At first, with regard to certain issues, such contradictions may not manifest themselves as antagonistic. But with the development of the class struggle, they may grow and become antagonistic. The history of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union shows us that the contradictions between the correct thinking of Lenin and Stalin and the fallacious thinking of Trotsky, Bukharin and others did not at first manifest themselves in an antagonistic form, but that later they did develop into antagonism. There are similar cases in the history of the Chinese Communist Party. At first the contradictions between the correct thinking of many of our Party comrades and the fallacious thinking of Chen Tu-hsiu, Chang Kuo-tao and others also did not manifest themselves in an antagonistic form, but later they did develop into antagonism. At present the contradiction between correct and incorrect thinking in our Party does not manifest itself in an antagonistic form, and if comrades who have committed mistakes can correct them, it will not develop into antagonism. Therefore, the Party must on the one hand wage a serious struggle against erroneous thinking, and on the other give the comrades who have committed errors ample opportunity to wake up. This being the case, excessive struggle is obviously inappropriate. But if the people who have committed errors persist in them and aggravate them, there is the possibility that this contradiction will develop into antagonism.

Economically, the contradiction between town and country is an extremely antagonistic one both in capitalist society, where under the rule of the bourgeoisie the towns ruthlessly plunder the countryside, and in the Kuomintang areas in China, where under the rule of foreign imperialism and the Chinese big comprador bourgeoisie the towns most rapaciously plunder the countryside. But in a socialist country and in our revolutionary base areas, this antagonistic contradiction has changed into one that is non-antagonistic; and when communist society is reached it will be abolished.

Lenin said, "Antagonism and contradiction are not at all one and the same. Under socialism, the first will disappear, the second will remain." [25] That is to say, antagonism is one form, but not the only form, of the struggle of opposites; the formula of antagonism cannot be arbitrarily applied everywhere.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

178810

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 178810 Posts

@Grimdalus said:

@LJS9502_basic:

Read On contradiction by Mao.

Government should never enter in ideas and thoughts of individuals no matter how egregious one may find their thoughts and ideas. Government exists to benefit society. Society does not exist to benefit government.

Avatar image for Grimdalus
Grimdalus

135

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10  Edited By Grimdalus
Member since 2013 • 135 Posts

@LJS9502_basic said:

@Grimdalus said:

@LJS9502_basic:

Read On contradiction by Mao.

Government should never enter in ideas and thoughts of individuals no matter how egregious one may find their thoughts and ideas. Government exists to benefit society. Society does not exist to benefit government.

That is where you are wrong. The Government should helps the rights of society over the rights of stupid bigots and bourgeois pigs. The government should be run by the workers for the workers to benefits the workers. What I believe in, is Maoism, which is the Dictatorship of the workers. Society would benefit from a socialist nation.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

178810

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#11 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 178810 Posts

@Grimdalus said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@Grimdalus said:

@LJS9502_basic:

Read On contradiction by Mao.

Government should never enter in ideas and thoughts of individuals no matter how egregious one may find their thoughts and ideas. Government exists to benefit society. Society does not exist to benefit government.

That is where you are wrong. The Government should helps the rights of society over the rights of stupid bigots and bourgeois pigs. The government should be run by the workers for the workers to benefits the workers. What I believe in, is Maoism, which is the Dictatorship of the workers. Society would benefit from a socialist nation.

I'm not wrong. Your argument is a slippery slope argument. You allow government to decide what individuals can feel and think. You are most definitely NOT one who values human rights. I'm not getting into your political ideas. That argument is for another day and not what this thread is about. You assessment in naive nonetheless.

Avatar image for MlauTheDaft
MlauTheDaft

5189

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#12 MlauTheDaft
Member since 2011 • 5189 Posts

It's impossible for any human being to not/never have any bigoted thoughs. What you do with them is what determines wether or not you're a bigot. Considering oneself a righteous person is a great way of becoming a bigot without realizing it.

There, that's my peasent version of the wall-of-text in my mind.

Avatar image for Grimdalus
Grimdalus

135

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#13 Grimdalus
Member since 2013 • 135 Posts

@LJS9502_basic said:

@Grimdalus said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@Grimdalus said:

@LJS9502_basic:

Read On contradiction by Mao.

Government should never enter in ideas and thoughts of individuals no matter how egregious one may find their thoughts and ideas. Government exists to benefit society. Society does not exist to benefit government.

That is where you are wrong. The Government should helps the rights of society over the rights of stupid bigots and bourgeois pigs. The government should be run by the workers for the workers to benefits the workers. What I believe in, is Maoism, which is the Dictatorship of the workers. Society would benefit from a socialist nation.

I'm not wrong. Your argument is a slippery slope argument. You allow government to decide what individuals can feel and think. You are most definitely NOT one who values human rights. I'm not getting into your political ideas. That argument is for another day and not what this thread is about. You assessment in naive nonetheless.

We have very different ideas of what human rights is but I agree that is for another day.

Avatar image for Gaming-Planet
Gaming-Planet

21064

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 14

User Lists: 0

#14  Edited By Gaming-Planet
Member since 2008 • 21064 Posts

Take them out of the problematic environment and everything changes.

Avatar image for TheHighWind
TheHighWind

5724

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#15 TheHighWind
Member since 2003 • 5724 Posts

No it isn't. Bigots are backwards idiots who think they can hate an entire group of people for what one individual did, or just for the fact that they hate them.

Avatar image for uninspiredcup
uninspiredcup

58646

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 86

User Lists: 2

#16  Edited By uninspiredcup
Member since 2013 • 58646 Posts

A distinction exists between morally and legally correct - and understandable. Understanding something doesn't preclude it from responsibility or punishment.

Avatar image for KHAndAnime
KHAndAnime

17565

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#17 KHAndAnime
Member since 2009 • 17565 Posts

It's probably natural to get bigoted thoughts. Everyone usually has a certain group of people where a pattern develops that you've learned to think about them and their joint opinion in a negative light.

It's understandable, sure. Acceptable? If someone wants to stick to their opinion, no matter how uninformed it is, that's their right. Encouragable? Of course not.

Avatar image for Serraph105
Serraph105

36038

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#18  Edited By Serraph105
Member since 2007 • 36038 Posts

@KHAndAnime: I pretty much agree with your take on this, yes bigoted thoughts happen, but it's not something that you want to encourage in either other people or yourself.

Avatar image for br0kenrabbit
br0kenrabbit

17851

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#19  Edited By br0kenrabbit
Member since 2004 • 17851 Posts

@KHAndAnime said:
If someone wants to stick to their opinion, no matter how uninformed it is, that's their right.

The real problem comes when people mistake opinion for fact. The fanatically religious are really good at that.

Avatar image for LostVoyager
LostVoyager

385

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#20  Edited By LostVoyager
Member since 2012 • 385 Posts

@always_explicit said:

Its not my business to understand the thoughts, feelings or rationale of other people. I feel If I attempted to understand everybody I met who held an opinion I wouldnt get very much done at all. I sincerely hope people do not waste their time trying to understand me. That really would be a tragic waste of time.

A lot of the times people will use the guise of psychology or trying to understand someone as an excuse for stalking/predatory behavior.

Uninspiredcup was Dr. Mengele justified by his experiments at concentration camps because they were done in the name of science?

Also to the point made on legally/morally correct, they are relative.

You do not blame the victim also right? I mean if you are going to say that someone is annoying or a jerk so they deserve a bad thing to happen to them than you could justify any crime towards any group. Say a homosexual blows up a synagogue because Judaism teaches that homosexuals that act on their sexuality should be put to death. Are the victims to blame?
Thus this absolves any responsibility for the perpetrator's actions... I mean because the victims had it coming right?

Wrong you never blame the victim. However many people commit crimes and get away with them.