Regardless of any number of other factors, there are always people out there who will be dicks and do things just to upset people who hold different views. I accept freedom of speech and don't want to shut down discussion, the claim that only one side of any argument has to be guarded is not credible to me.
I don't deny some people are happy to cross symbolic (or sometimes legal) lines just to rub it in. I'm feeling skeptical that we would agree about the impact or social effects of it . Once you say some group "will be dicks," Unless I absolutely detest the same groups today (and often, I also need to believe I probably detest them for the same reasons as I think you do!)... Short of that, I pretty much get the impression I shouldn't bother debating that particular line with you. I usually wouldn't use that terminology and it leads me to suspect you're pretty vehement already. Probable waste of energy and pleasant atmosphere for me to go on.
Getting into the whole "public" argument will take significantly more time and effort, as well as potentially derailing the thread. I'm really not a fan of the whole "you have to follow X or else we take away your privileges" deal.
You're right, that would be another thread. Basically, I'll be more curious about this after rearranging wealth distribution, population density, and infrastructure.
Let's create the extreme example of the Church of Stan, which only allows people named Stan, and everyone else isn't ever allowed in. Now, it's idiotic, sure, but would I want them to either lose their charity status or be forced to have other members? Just in case this example is either too extreme or there actually is a Church of Stan (in which case I apologize), Wags finger.
Really, you could have just Googled? http://www.facebook.com/ChurchoStan
And if you keep googling... It sounds
like maybe they've grown fourfold since 2008.
From 8 people to 35 or more, if these sites line up?
That was a jab at anyone who considers the color of the skin more important than the content of character. I wasn't saying Obama was at fault there so much as the people who voted for him.The way I see it, you're just as much a bigot for despising (or adoring) a white person as you are a non-white person, as much for straight as for gay, as much for a woman as for a man, as much for a fundamentalist as for an atheist, and so on.
I don't like to play with the word "bigot" very much since 1) I think it's become too charged to exchange without insulting someone out of the gate and for me, worse: 2) perhaps partly because I avoid it -- but I don't know its history in the language, and I'm not sure I understand the outcomes.
Trying to humor you, though: At a glance, "bigot" can be defined as a claim about intolerance. So... It's not clear to me that not "adoring" someone is equivalent to not tolerating them as a presence or political entity.
There are too many possibilities in each word. I don't deny those sometimes can
line up if you want to focus there. But you're likely missing a whole set of ideas that historically marginalized people think of (especially as political activist groups) when they use the same word. It's even possible you are pointing to a few issues with the identity lines being too rigid. I like to do that too, somewhat. I'm just not confident that the "tolerance" you are suggesting here, is the same as the "tolerance" requested by oh, the voting blocs (if you like) that you're criticizing.
I thought the thread was starting out as something about gay rights and Obama, but I feel you're careening around and I've lost any central question. Plus it's getting to bedtime. So I'll stop there.