Bigot or liar, pick one

“A statement of simple fact is not bigotry.”

Richard Dawkins

Alas, on this point Dawkins is wrong.

Increasingly, lots of statements of fact are bigotry.

IQ varies by race. This is an obvious fact and it’s bigotry (see Jason Richwine). Propensity to commit crime varies by race. Women have different abilities than men. (It may even be bigoted to consider women as independent moral agents). It’s probably best not to notice what percentage of transgenders in the military leak massive amounts of information, and if you do be careful how you do it or you’ll offend the thought and language police. Etc. The world is full of hatefacts.

In this framework, you can only be on one of two sides: the side of liars or the side of bigots. Do you choose to tell the truth or to defend the false gods of our times?

16 Responses to Bigot or liar, pick one

  1. C.H. Parker says:

    Reblogged this on The Exceptional and commented:
    Very well put by Foseti. I’m choosing the side of the bigots, for two reasons – I’m seeing the worm turn, as they say, and more and more thinking ‘progressives’ seem to be seeing the light. That and I used to get beat if I lied, and I wince at the thought to this day.

  2. thrasymachus33308 says:

    Somebody’s aaaaaaannnnnnnggrryyyyyyy…………….

    It’s OK, buddy. Righteous anger is godly. Hell, you don’t have to take my word for it, just ask MLK…..

  3. Alrenous says:

    If bigot as used no longer matches its dictionary definition, we need a new word that means what bigot used to mean, which can then inherit its old connotations, as they were well-deserved.

    Perhaps, even better, taboo bigot itself and use a second new word to refer to progressive-form-bigot.

    The point is that PFB is sophistry, attempting to place connotations where they do not belong, and accepting the label is merely playing into this strategy.

    • asdf says:

      Making a bunch of arguments about what bigot, racist, or anything else means surrenders frame. At this point you might as well just start calling yourself a racist. None of these people care about the actual content of your beliefs or the historical meaning of words, they are trying to use a word as a weapon. The only way to disarm that weapon is to show you aren’t afraid of it, not to run away from it.

      • Alrenous says:

        The word as weapon works on the audience, and the audience will see it that way whether you are afraid of it or not.

        Of course, don’t argue with a proggie about what bigot means. However, being not-afraid also surrenders frame. It concedes the proggie the right to assign words to you, and if bigot doesn’t inflame the crowd properly, they will simply cycle through until they find one that does.

        I would have a suggestion about what to do instead, but as a devout Epicurean, I avoid vexatious people, which means all proggies, which means I haven’t tested my own strategies.

    • There was no word for racist before 1930, for that men were of different kinds was not a political belief system, but reality.

      Early use of the word bigot meant a religious sectarian, someone holier than thou, and was generally applied to sects that were the predecessors of today’s progressives, and which were in fact progressive. In particular, and especially, William Wilberforce was called a bigot for his anti slavery and anti beta male sexuality views.

      • Alrenous says:


        I should have said explicitly I care about the concept. The concept of ‘bigot’ as per the dictionary is still useful, and requires a label shorter than ‘concept of ‘bigot’ as per the dictionary.’ If the well’s been poisoned for the term ‘bigot,’ then it needs a new well.

        You mentioned two possible concepts labelled by ‘racism’ but there’s a third; that some races are morally different from others. For example, the belief that when a black commits assault, it is not morally wrong the way it would be for a white. Or to use a favourite, that it is morally wrong for a aborigine to drink alcohol, but not for a white.

  4. VXXC says:

    I think with Chelsea Manning we need to meet halfway. We chop it off and let him bleed out. This will satisfy both the whatever gender Jezbels and those of us who understand he needs to die.

    I’m a fair man.

  5. Arakawa says:

    Clicking around on the Bradley Manning link leads to this ‘Stylebook Supplement on LGBT Terminology’, which is short but more interesting than anything you’d find on Jezebel itself:

  6. […] returns nicely tanned and with both kinds of “randoms”. Plus, Bigot or Liar: Pick One. Lying remains popular, but is, we think, trending […]

  7. Those of you who have read and agreed with this article are to be commended. You have taken the first step outside the prison of conditioned thought in which you have been imprisoned.

    You are now ready to face the Unspeakable Truth.

    Be warned: you won’t like the truth. Not one bit.

    The truth is ugly. It contradicts everything you have been taught. It is offensive and unpleasant.

    But the truth must be faced if we are to survive.

    Most people would rather believe a pleasant lie than an ugly truth. But If you are willing to face the truth in all its ugliness, if you are a man or woman of character and courage who has the guts to look reality in the face and accept it as it is, here’s your chance.

    • KK says:

      How quaint, an alt-right spambot.

      • Ah, you’re afraid to face the truth.

      • Alrenous says:

        Saw a cute line. “Does my virus come with free shipping and handling?”

        I disagree about it being alt-right. The boilerplate is vague enough to work anywhere except the most polite societies – a professional board or a forum for Christian wives, that sort of thing.

        The idea is to accuse you of being a coward such that you can cleanse the shame by obeying. You’re not supposed to notice that blind obedience is more shameful, of course.

        Can also look at it as saying the decision to ignore the anonymous link with a contentless pitch is wrong, and only a coward would think that way. This would be an example of an ad-hominem fallacy. No actual evidence that the decision is wrong has been presented.

        Hey Meadow, “have read and agreed with this article are to be commended” Really? Which article? What about? What did it say?

  8. […] that one constantly observes everywhere one goes – that it’s clear as day to any honest bigot whose honesty, if public, revokes his progressivism-issued permit to earn a living.  Someone once […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: