Shepard Smith of Fox News was on The View this morning. He brilliantly highlighted the distinction between personal opinion and journalism. He said "I don't get to have personal opinions. I'm a journalist."

They kept trying to get him to personally weigh in on everything but he cleverly did not do so. He is close to Juan Williams and works with him through Fox News and I feel his The View stance is a lesson to Williams and others who don't know what "First Amendment" and "political correctness" mean.

Don't believe so.



Definitions of bigot on the Web and in my dictionary:

• a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own
  wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
• A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.
  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigot
• one intolerantly devoted to his or her own prejudices or opinions Merriam-Webster Dictionary

I don't see intolerance in either William's comments or Jackson's.

But you do see that "one's feelings" (and expressed opinions) are what this dictionary definition (read: surface-level understanding of concepts) requires.

You happen to not think Williams' opinions were bigoted and others beg to differ. He was fired from NPR and given a 2mil gig with Fox News nonetheless.

You don't believe that bigoted feelings make a person a bigot? Or that Williams is a bigot? It seems insanely difficult for you to argue against the first (which was my point).

As for the second, you can at least make a sound argument. Let's try just the first definition, purely for academic purposes:

Prejudice is plain - he has a preconception of what a "self-identifying" Muslim person would wear, and what that would mean. The only argument is over the term "intolerant" but you can clear that barrier easily if you use only denotation (which you're attempting to do to jigger the conversation in your favor). Here's how:

It is also clear that Williams believes his prejudgment is the correct one to make, as he clearly states over and over that he agrees with O'Reilly and implies (if he doesn't directly state) that this is a natural and normal consequence of past terror acts. That view will clearly not tolerate other, dissenting views - if one is correct, opposition views are incorrect.

You can continue to miss the forest for the trees, but "feelings" can be bigoted. You don't get a free pass for "feelings" just like you don't for opinions, thoughts, or random exhortations. None of this was under duress, none of this is taken out of context - bigoted feelings make you bigoted. It's nearly tautological, it's so plain.

But you do also see that it requires intolerance as well. You can say what you like about William's but I do not see any intolerance in his statements before or after his firing. However if people want to consider Jesse Jackson and Juan Williams bigots for their statements then fine by me. I don't believe they are.

People have a tendency to bandy about the term "bigot" too loosely and it loses its meaning. Seems like a "bigot" is now someone who disagrees with the politically correct.

:) You are confusing the topic. We are no longer discussing whether or not his comments were bigoted. People will think of that what they will.

We are discussing your contention that "one's feelings are one's feelings and simply stating them does not a bigot make." Bigotry is rooted in feelings and opinions. Simply stating them is what outward expressions of bigotry are all about. That doesn't mean that every feeling and expression of feelings is bigotry. It means that feelings are not neutral and are not automatically awesome just because they are your feelings. Once you choose to express your feelings, you are opening them up to being processed and responded to by others.

If people want to go on and on about Free Speech and political correctness, also be able to accept how others process and respond to your expressions.

I really like and respect Shepard Smith. This is just one more feather in his cap.

I also like Shepard Smith.

As funnily in your face as Joy Behar tends to be, Smith was so unmoved that they couldn't get him to talk trash about anyone or anything.

Funny how that journalistic integrity works out for him. It's like... like his point was made without him ever even needing to say it.

I once took a wrong turn in Torrance, CA and ended up in a rough looking side of LA. On a street corner there were several black teens/men wearing a particular blue color. I presumed they were gang members. I was concerned and afraid. In hindsight they could have been a local basketball team but I was afraid. Now that I have shared how I felt with all of you I need to know if I am a bigot? If so, I guarantee that many of you are also bigots because fear and being afraid are emotions. Sometimes you can't help but have fear and concerns be they irrational or not.

If it is the perception of those who hear ones feelings and opinions that makes a bigot then I really guess that it will always come down to which end of the political spectrum one is speaking from. I now understand that the bottom line is a bigot is one who is perceived to be a bigot by certain others. It has nothing to do with ones actions and/or character.

The Point
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
Ghostwriter

Your experience just isn't relevant here - if you want me to enumerate the reasons I can, but you likely know better (hint: apples/oranges w/re/to context clues).

It isn't "perception". You were SO QUICK to define bigotry, and now you're just ignoring those definitions?

It's simple: prejudice against a group and an unwillingness to be open-minded against that prejudice (which should be our working definition of "intolerant" here) makes you bigoted. That has nothing to do with politics, until you start assigning motive to some nebulous "Liberal Media" that may or may not exist in the form you require it.

Actions and character matter. So does prejudice and intolerance. They are intertwined, not separate.

Also, actions? Like speaking stupid shit out of your face on national TV? Or character? Like acting indignant when others call out stupid shit? This can't be discussed in TheoryWorld, because it really happened and there is existing context.

It's fine if you don't feel that Williams deserved to be fired - I think that's a fair argument to have, even if I feel his employer had nearly no choice and thus disagree. But instead of being polemic, attempting to make some global observation about race relations is just silly onanism masquerading as discourse - it's short-sighted, borderline masturbatory, and 100% non sequitur.

I don't really know what this means but it gave me chills. LOL.

You used Onanism.

You're my hero.

You used masturbatory.

You're my hero.

Those are pretty good back-to-back - I got a giggle out of it.

Non sequitur?

Stuff?

[QUOTE=DrPhil;1998117]Match: KSig RC.

OMG - Congratulations we have found our new OSWALD BATES.

Typical liberal quasi"intelectualism". You don't like someone disagreeing with you. Now that you have proved that you know big words, I submit that you are a bigot. Your post shows an opinion based in intolerance for an opposing viewpoint. Your comments were at best meanspirited and at worse inflamatory. But what is to be expected from a panty waist liberal know it all who feels the need to use sophistry and invectives when reasonable discourse is called for.

If you are a Kappa Sig, and I hope and pray you are not, you definitely do not understand the meaning of "a gentlemen and a man of honor". Grow up and STFU. I am ashamed to call you a brother.

"I said my piece and counted to 3." Penny McGill

Bold = Irony at its finest

And LOL @ dissenting opinions = bad brotherhood :rolleyes: GTFOHWTBS

Spell check. :p

You assume that he, and anyone else in this thread, is a liberal. Poor assumption on your part and, since bigot is the word for the way, it shows your bigotry towards liberals. In reality, this topic has nothing to do with liberalism or conservatism.

:confused:

Again, you missed the point and somehow made this only about you.

Who is the "Oh High Queen Bitch" of weirdville now? Just you.

This is hil-aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarious!

I thought only women "kicked" GCer's with dissenting opinions "out" of their organization.

1 - I'm not a liberal. (Pretty far from it in fact - check the firefighter thread for evidence)

2 - Intellectualism isn't a bad thing, even if knuckle-dragging politicos want you to believe it is.

You're correct - I'm bigoted against people who attempt to make grandiose points based on a situation that does not suggest anything resembling those points.

I'm also bigoted against bad logic, people who use batting average instead of OBP or better stats, people who think the "run sets up the pass" instead of the other way around, Sean Penn, fans of Two & a Half Men, and U2.

Everyone is bigoted. Some of those people will lose their jobs for it.

Ah yes, the part where you resort to insults, while yelling at me for insulting you? Great work out of you.

Mu-Psi, 2000. Past GMC, proud alumni, donor, etc.

Be ashamed all you want. I didn't insult you or your upbringing, I didn't do anything that wasn't gentlemanly, and I feel that expressing myself and fighting what I perceive to be ignorance is one of the most honorable things possible.

I attacked your ideas because I disagreed with them. Not because of any personal characteristic about you - I don't know you, and we've both agreed and disagreed in threads (to my knowledge). It's called the Fundamental Attribution Theorem - read up a bit, then take attacks on ideas as just that, and not personal attacks.

Who knew that (1) KSig RC is a "panty waist liberal," or that (2) phrases like "typical liberal quasi 'intellectualism'" are calls for "reasonable discourse"?

I thought the phrase was pansy waist....

LOL.

(I hate it when people post just to announce that they LOL'd)