So, the latest coke ad superbowl hullabaloo got me thinking (dangerous start right there).
I had a quick look at the coke FB page this morning for a giggle about how some people are over-reacting to the whole thing, and a common theme amongst many of the comments is something along the lines of:
"Stop trying to censor me by calling me a bigot just because I have a different opinion to yours"
Now, I'm all for everyone being allowed any opinion they want. I'm all for different people being perfectly entitled to disagree on whatever issue they choose. But I'm also a big fan of people being allowed to say what another opinion is. If I was to state that abortion is murder and that life begins at conception then I should have no problem with someone else calling me a "pro-lifer". If I was to state that the Atlanta Falcons are the best team going at the moment I should have no problem being called an "Atlanta Falcons fan".
Similarly, if I express an opinion that shows me to be intolerant of differences in race, sexuality, gender, culture, etc and that there is only one way to do things (invariably that means the way I do things), then I should have no problem being called a "bigot". It's a dictionary definition that fits perfectly.
So why do the various racists, homophobes and other various idiots who express bigoted opinions have such a problem with others calling a spade a spade and applying the correct label to those opinions?
And if they hate that word so much, why do they hate it? What is it about it that they feel incorrectly labels them in some way? What injustice is being committed by applying the term "bigot" to someone who expresses clearly bigoted opinions?
I have no idea what the "coke ad hullaballoo" is. It apparently hasn't reached my neighbourhood. But the simple answer to your question, "What injustice is being committed by applying the term "bigot" to someone who expresses clearly bigoted opinions?" is that maybe their opinions are not as "clearly bigoted" as you think.
“Life is a shipwreck, but we must not forget to sing in the lifeboats.” ― Voltaire
crispybits wrote:Similarly, if I express an opinion that shows me to be intolerant of differences in race, sexuality, gender, culture, etc and that there is only one way to do things (invariably that means the way I do things), then I should have no problem being called a "bigot". It's a dictionary definition that fits perfectly.
So why do the various racists, homophobes and other various idiots who express bigoted opinions have such a problem with others calling a spade a spade and applying the correct label to those opinions?
And if they hate that word so much, why do they hate it? What is it about it that they feel incorrectly labels them in some way? What injustice is being committed by applying the term "bigot" to someone who expresses clearly bigoted opinions?
Because people are being called bigots anytime they disagree with something. If they disagree with perpetual welfare, they're bigots. If they believe marriage is between a man and woman, they're bigots. If they believe abortion is murder, they're bigots. If they don't believe that illegal immigrants should be legalized, they're bigots. People are bigots anytime they disagree with a position held by the progressives in society. THAT is why people take offense when they're called bigots: because they're called bigots for every position taken.
I remember the ad vaguely, but only because I thought my television had gone to Spanish (seriously - if one of my kids hits a certain button, the TV goes to Spanish language - I thought about trying it out, but there's a delay - Bruno Mars's Spanish language half-time show was not as entertaining because it looked like he was lip syncing).
In any event, can someone give me a bullet summary of what the advertisement's detractors were saying? What is it an English language thing or was it a racial/culture diverse thing? Are people offended that folks embrace their culture while also embracing nationlistic music?
Generally, I agree with Night Strike. The word "bigot" is used to label people incorrectly in American society lately. As NS points out, a pro-life conservative is likely to be labelled a bigot, which is not the appropriate use of the term. Additionally, the term "bigot," by its negative nature allows the user of the term to parachute out of an argument. I could call someone a "bigot" and use the term inappropriately, and still be able to bail out on any substantive argument and feel good about myself.
That being said, I also agree with OP. If someone meets the definition of a bigot, that person should own the label.
For what it's worth, the most offensive ad was one I only saw after the Super Bowl. It was the Axe ad which played on three stereotypes (Muslim terrorists, American Vietnam-era marines about to kill a bunch of civilians, and North Korean dictators). I guess it wasn't offensive to people because it included American Vietnam-era marines so the liberals didn't get pissed off and it wasn't offensive to conservatives because it included Muslim terrorists and North Korean dictators. I found it offensive in the following percentages:
78% - Axe 20% - Perpetuating ignorance among Americans to political issues 2% - Perpetuating cultural/racial/military stereotypes
So, to be fair to the ad's writers, I would have found any Axe ad offensive.
thegreekdog wrote:I remember the ad vaguely, but only because I thought my television had gone to Spanish (seriously - if one of my kids hits a certain button, the TV goes to Spanish language - I thought about trying it out, but there's a delay - Bruno Mars's Spanish language half-time show was not as entertaining because it looked like he was lip syncing).
In any event, can someone give me a bullet summary of what the advertisement's detractors were saying? What is it an English language thing or was it a racial/culture diverse thing? Are people offended that folks embrace their culture while also embracing nationlistic music?
Generally, I agree with Night Strike. The word "bigot" is used to label people incorrectly in American society lately. As NS points out, a pro-life conservative is likely to be labelled a bigot, which is not the appropriate use of the term. Additionally, the term "bigot," by its negative nature allows the user of the term to parachute out of an argument. I could call someone a "bigot" and use the term inappropriately, and still be able to bail out on any substantive argument and feel good about myself.
That being said, I also agree with OP. If someone meets the definition of a bigot, that person should own the label.
For what it's worth, the most offensive ad was one I only saw after the Super Bowl. It was the Axe ad which played on three stereotypes (Muslim terrorists, American Vietnam-era marines about to kill a bunch of civilians, and North Korean dictators). I guess it wasn't offensive to people because it included American Vietnam-era marines so the liberals didn't get pissed off and it wasn't offensive to conservatives because it included Muslim terrorists and North Korean dictators. I found it offensive in the following percentages:
78% - Axe 20% - Perpetuating ignorance among Americans to political issues 2% - Perpetuating cultural/racial/military stereotypes
So, to be fair to the ad's writers, I would have found any Axe ad offensive.
If it's the ad I'm thinking about, they were singing "America the Beautiful" or "God Bless America" in Spanish and maybe some other languages. IDK because I changed the channel to Walking Dead marathon right away.
Last edited by Phatscotty on Tue Feb 04, 2014 1:52 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Phatscotty wrote:If it's the ad I'm thinking about, they were singing "America the Beautiful" or "God Bless America" in Spanish and maybe some other languages. IDK because I changed the channel to Walking Dead marathon right away.
According to a news article on the interwebs, these were the languages:
English, Spanish, Tagalog, Hebrew, Hindi, Keres Pueblo, and Senegalese-French.
Phatscotty wrote:If it's the ad I'm thinking about, they were singing "America the Beautiful" or "God Bless America" in Spanish and maybe some other languages. IDK because I changed the channel to Walking Dead marathon right away.
According to a news article on the interwebs, these were the languages:
English, Spanish, Tagalog, Hebrew, Hindi, Keres Pueblo, and Senegalese-French.
--Andy
Why do you or anyone else think Coca-Cola did this, besides of course being provocative and generating chatter, or is it just flexing their Progressive organs. They say any publicity is good publicity, but I don't think that goes for global corporations. I think Coke knew this would generate a negative backlash, and if they didn't, they need to rethink their entire advertising and marketing campaign.
crispybits wrote:So, the latest coke ad superbowl hullabaloo got me thinking (dangerous start right there).
I had a quick look at the coke FB page this morning for a giggle about how some people are over-reacting to the whole thing, and a common theme amongst many of the comments is something along the lines of:
"Stop trying to censor me by calling me a bigot just because I have a different opinion to yours"
Now, I'm all for everyone being allowed any opinion they want. I'm all for different people being perfectly entitled to disagree on whatever issue they choose. But I'm also a big fan of people being allowed to say what another opinion is. If I was to state that abortion is murder and that life begins at conception then I should have no problem with someone else calling me a "pro-lifer".
Sweet thread and good topic, but I want to go ahead and take the next step. So if it is bigoted just to call someone a pro-lifer or to be pro-life, what is it when a governor of a state tells you you are no longer welcome there, and that you have no place there?
I wasn't so much trying to say "this or that is bigotry and anyone who says this or that is a bigot" so much as to wonder why there is almost a stronger backlash to the bigot word than there is to racist or homophobe or xenophobe or misogynist or whatever. It's not about the coke ad either, that was just what got me thinking about it at a point in time when I had a few minutes to start a thread in here.
Say one of the "bigots" gets called a homophobe or a racist, their retort is generally "I don't care, gayness isn't natural" or "they're not like us we shouldn't mix" whatever. They generally attempt to argue the point and make a comeback. But call them a bigot instead and the reaction is often very different (despite the underlying meaning being basically the same), and they get very offended and accuse you of trying to remove their free speech or something (OK generalising slightly, but this is about my anecdotal experience at the end of the day and that's a pattern that I've made in my head)
I'm just wondering why that word often provokes such a different reaction to semantically identical words in various contexts.
Phatscotty wrote: Sweet thread and good topic, but I want to go ahead and take the next step. So if it is bigoted just to call someone a pro-lifer or to be pro-life, what is it when a governor of a state tells you you are no longer welcome there, and that you have no place there?
Why are people put-off by Tagalog? Filipinos were U.S. nationals until the 1940s. If anything I would think people in the Phillipines would be the ones offended by GBA being sang in Tagalog; like having an American singing God Save the Queen in an ad during the Cornish women's croquet championship (or whatever the big annual sporting event is in the UK).
Edit ... I just watched it on YouTube and I was offended because it was a silly, sappy ad that tries to use some appeal to patriotism to sell carbonated sugar water. Also, I agree with PS or BBS or whomever it was who said the purpose of the ad was to get a thread started on ConquerClub where the word "Coke" would be repeatedly mentioned. If that wasn't it they would have had them singing Goldfinger, or any other song, instead.
Last edited by saxitoxin on Tue Feb 04, 2014 3:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
crispybits wrote:You already have a thread for that PS
I wasn't so much trying to say "this or that is bigotry and anyone who says this or that is a bigot" so much as to wonder why there is almost a stronger backlash to the bigot word than there is to racist or homophobe or xenophobe or misogynist or whatever. It's not about the coke ad either, that was just what got me thinking about it at a point in time when I had a few minutes to start a thread in here.
Say one of the "bigots" gets called a homophobe or a racist, their retort is generally "I don't care, gayness isn't natural" or "they're not like us we shouldn't mix" whatever. They generally attempt to argue the point and make a comeback. But call them a bigot instead and the reaction is often very different (despite the underlying meaning being basically the same), and they get very offended and accuse you of trying to remove their free speech or something (OK generalising slightly, but this is about my anecdotal experience at the end of the day and that's a pattern that I've made in my head)
I'm just wondering why that word often provokes such a different reaction to semantically identical words in various contexts.
I don't think being called a "racist" versus being called a "bigot" for the same statement will generate different reactions. Do you have examples?
Everyone is a bigot in some form or fashion. It's not just not liking people, but also ideas, beliefs, religions and other things as well.
There isn't a person who posts in CC that isn't a bigot in one way or another.
The emotion is probably a left over from human beings early development and evolved as a form of survival instinct. A handy thing to have in certain circumstances. A strong distrust in things, people, ideas, cultures and such can actually help keep one from getting into trouble of the life threatening kind. It can also alienate people, which isn't always a good thing.
So it's like a lot of other things in life, bigotry has useful and non useful purposes. Pretty much like everything else there is in the world.
Coke, meh. But they are getting a lot of free advertising out of the ad. It's not like anyone can actually boycott Coke. Unless one only drinks water from their own well then they are at some point going to be drinking something that Coca Cola owns.
If someone wants to sing "God Bless America" in Spanish, what's it matter?
Multiculturalism is the same way, it has good attributes I suppose but it also has some negative effects. The biggest probably being that it tends to dissolve the glue that holds societies together. Ramming heads with that very bigotry instinct so long ago cultivated into mankind for good reason. PC campaigns can't override tens of thousands of years of evolution.
If freedom were really believed in then no one would give a crap if like minded people want to congregate together or not. The world is plenty big enough for everyone to find their particular niche where they feel comfortable, can be productive and most important, be happy. Problems arise when people from any persuasion start ramming beliefs and ideas for how things should be down everyone else's throats. And that can't be put on just the "bigots" as being the culprits.
Undoubtedly there will be plenty of more arguing between people with everyone calling everyone else bigots and the funny thing is that they'll all be right! Reminds me of an old Chappelle skit "I know black people". One question asked by Chappelle was "Is pimpin' easy?" Everyone answered "no, pimpin' ain't easy" and were correct in their answer. The last guy, a real urban black fellow thought about it for a second and said "Hell yeah pimpin's easy". Chappelle was surprised to find out that this answer was also correct.
crispybits wrote:I'm just wondering why that word often provokes such a different reaction to semantically identical words in various contexts.
Because bigotry is an evolutionary trait of human beings. It's ingrained in a way to our minds. That can be overcome, just like the self preservation instinct or other instincts we have left over from our early development. People react strongly to it because it has negative connotations and causes a certain psychological dilemma in one's psyche. On the one hand that feeling is natural, it's hardwired in us. Thus it has a purpose. It's "right". But then we are told that it's not right. Since there is no such thing as a non bigoted person and since bigot has such a negative meaning and no one will admit to being a bigot (people justify their bigotry one way or another, be it bigotry to religion, race, creed or ideas) it causes an OMF in one's brain. Sort of like a catch 22 I guess.
If we were robots we might explode when facing such a dilemma. Since we are human beings we tend to yell at everyone else instead. It's not much more complicated than that.
And in before "bigotry is a learned emotion". Fine, whatever, so everyone learns to be a bigot to something and many things and justify that bigotry regardless to fool themselves into thinking they aren't a bigot.
Phatscotty wrote: Why do you or anyone else think Coca-Cola did this, besides of course being provocative and generating chatter, or is it just flexing their Progressive organs. They say any publicity is good publicity, but I don't think that goes for global corporations. I think Coke knew this would generate a negative backlash, and if they didn't, they need to rethink their entire advertising and marketing campaign.
Tagalog....really
What exactly are you trying to say? The 3.5 million Americans of Filipino ethnic origin aren't allowed to be happy about it? Not sure what you're trying to suggest. Are they supposed to burn their American passports and go back home? What about the ones that died in your wars -- are you going to dig up their bones and revoke their citizenship, too?
saxitoxin wrote:
Not sure what you're trying to suggest, either. People with the gold finger gene aren't good enough for you?
“Life is a shipwreck, but we must not forget to sing in the lifeboats.” ― Voltaire
thegreekdog wrote:I don't think being called a "racist" versus being called a "bigot" for the same statement will generate different reactions. Do you have examples?
None to hand and I cba scrolling through lots of pointless youtube style argument comments sections - but the next time I see one I'll come back and bump this thread with it for you if I remember.
You'll find one yourself if you go to any "contentious" topic (gay marriage / racial equality / whatever) on a website where there's enough right wingers to make them confident enough to spout their hate and enough left wingers to be confident enough pulling them up for it. Racist or homophobe is like water of a duck's back and bigot is like you just called them a "c u next Tuesday" in church very loudly...
thegreekdog wrote:I don't think being called a "racist" versus being called a "bigot" for the same statement will generate different reactions. Do you have examples?
None to hand and I cba scrolling through lots of pointless youtube style argument comments sections - but the next time I see one I'll come back and bump this thread with it for you if I remember.
You'll find one yourself if you go to any "contentious" topic (gay marriage / racial equality / whatever) on a website where there's enough right wingers to make them confident enough to spout their hate and enough left wingers to be confident enough pulling them up for it. Racist or homophobe is like water of a duck's back and bigot is like you just called them a "c u next Tuesday" in church very loudly...
I hope you realize there are bigots on BOTH sides. Conservatives aren't the only ones to spew hate (as your post implies).
