Last week, I found (via The Pugnacious Irishman) a post complaining about opponents of gay marriage having to deal with people thinking they’re bigots, then suggesting a strikingly dishonest way of dealing with this criticisms: start demanding definitions of every such word they use.
This is dishonest because most people who don’t write dictionary entries for a living can’t define most of the words they use every day. And yes, some of those words they use in confusing ways, but most of them they communicate perfectly fine with. Even professional dictionary makers have this problem to a degree: give a dictionary definition to any competent philosopher and they’ll be able to pick holes in it.
For example, if I had to suggest a definition for the word “bigot,” I’d propose something like “someone with an irrational hostility to another group of people,” but I’m sure if I suggested this definition in a room full of philosophers they could poke holes in it. But everyone still understands perfectly well what I mean when I say that Mel Gibson is a bigot.
I wasn’t going to write about this, as I no longer find pointing out that some religious person said something stupid all that exciting. But then I read a story at the American Atheists blog about how one parent reacted to finding out her daughter was a lesbian:
When Sarah’s mother saw Rachael in the store she ran up to her, face contorted and red with anger, pointer finger waving in Rachael’s face, and began chastising Rachael for doing this to Sarah. Sarah’s mother accused Rachael of causing her “lesbian curiosity” and for “polluting Sarah’s mind with lesbianism.” Sarah’s mother then told Rachael, “I want to rip your face off.” According to the witnesses, Sarah’s father had to pull Sarah’s mother screaming from Hot Topic.
(Read the rest–there’s more where that bit of crazy came from.)
Reading this was a jolt for me. As I’ve mentioned before, I rarely encounter anyone of my generation who can hold anti-gay views in a more than half-hearted manner. That story was a reminder that in America, anti-gay bigotry is still alive and well enough to make a fair number of young people’s lives miserable (though if you’re one of those young people, it gets better.)
It’s also a reminder that, whatever the difficulties in giving necessary and sufficient conditions for bigotry are, there is still such a thing as an obvious case of anti-gay bigotry. For one thing, if you would begin putting all your effort into making one of your own children miserable upon finding out that he or she was gay, you are an anti-gay bigot. Really, obvious cases of anti-gay bigotry aren’t that hard to come by.
For example if you think homosexuality is such an abomination that it is sometimes right to kill people just for having gay sex, you’re an anti-gay bigot.
Or, if you’re under the delusion that homosexuality is a punishment visited by your god on those who reject Him, you are an anti-gay bigot.
Now, supposing these to be instances of anti-gay bigotry has what for many people will be an awkward implication: sincere, informed believers in Biblical inerrancy will be anti-gay bigots. This is because the two points just mentioned can be found in the Bible. That, though, seems the right conclusion to draw. No one would doubt the bigotry of saying analogous things about Jews or African-Americans. The main reason non-fundamentalists have for doubting those things are bigoted is that they have the funny idea that the contents of major religious texts, and utterances of major religious leaders, are never more than a little bad.
I have to qualify this by repeating what I’ve already said, that many people’s anti-gay views are only half-hearted. Under some circumstances they are quite comfortable explaining that they believe what the Bible teachers, and just think homosexuality is a sin like any other. However, if you press them on whether they think certain texts say what they appear to, they can only mumble a response. These people don’t deserve to be called bigots. That, though, won’t stop me from laughing at their awkward attempts to triangulate between bigotry and decency.
You’ve attacked a straw man. The post I referred to did not “demand” that folks give a “dictionary” definition” to “every such” word they use. The article I linked mentioned that the person isn’t likely to know the dictionary definition, but this is far from a “demand” that he give it.
The term is a loaded word, and many people use loaded words like that to do the heavy lifting, instead of actual reason or principle. Should I be bullied by the use of such loaded language and give up my convictions? Should I expect you to do so if I called you a bunch of names? It’s reasonable if someone lobs a name at me for me to ask “what do you mean by that?” Simple question, not a “demand for a dictionary definition.” I don’t find that dishonest at all. If you call names, you had better be able to justify it with some sort of meaning that actually applies to me. And yes, if you frequently use such words in the place of principled discussion, then yes, be prepared to frequently justify your use of such words. Just painting me with an ugly blanket word is not good enough.
If, instead of responding to your views with actual arguments, I simply called you a “crazed liberal with no moral scruples,” just b.c you disagreed with something I said/held/did, etc, you’d have reason to ask me what I meant by that. Same thing goes in this instance.
Bottom line: I shouldn’t just accept an ad hominem just b.c you say it. It deserves a little questioning.
>”The post I referred to did not ‘demand’ that folks give a ‘dictionary’ definition to ‘every such’ word they use.”
By Jove, this is too easy: whether or not the sentence above is true, the post you lined to did in fact “ask” that folks give a “definition” for “every ‘bad’ word” they use.
And if you called me a “crazed liberal with no moral scruples,” I would respond to the charge, not pretend I didn’t know what you were saying.
Chris,
What I took objection to was “demand” and “dictionary.” Of course the guy asked for a definition…but demanding an exact dictionary definition? No.
The bottom line is he is simply asking the name caller to justify the name…if you call me a name, you need to be able to know and explain how that accurately applies to me…plenty of folks out there, instead of engaging with the views of conservatives and Christians, instead just lob names heavily laden with emotional content…to be fair, many conservatives and Christians do it to, and its fair to call them to justify their words when they do it. I don’t think its dishonest or somehow unfair to ask for that.
Let’s take this very slowly:
(1) What is the important distinction between “ask” and “demand,” in a conversational context where, obviously, no one has any special authority or coercive power that could back up a demand?
(2) Do you dispute the argument I actually made in the above post–that most people can’t define many words they use, even though they successfully communicate with those words?
Hi, regarding the two statements:
(1) “For example if you think homosexuality is such an abomination that it is sometimes right to
kill people just for having gay sex, you’re an anti-gay bigot.”
and..
(2) “Or, if you’re under the delusion that homosexuality is a punishment visited by your god on
those who reject Him, you are an anti-gay bigot.”
Re (1): What if I think homosexuality IS an abomination, without demanding death? Would that view make me an anti-gay bigot?
Yes, the O.T made it clear that the practice was worthy of death (I assume after some kind of trial), yet, as you pointed out, we now (or should now) treat it as any other sin (by appealing to God’s grace, not his justice).
Re (2): I don’t see that sentiment in the Bible. I don’t think homosexuality is a punishment for anything, just as an adulterer cannot claim he is being “punished” by God by having an adulterous heart visited upon him. Can you clarify?
Also, what did you mean by: “However, if you press them on whether they think certain say what they appear to, they can only mumble a response.” (??)
Chris,
On 1)
The first carries a neutral connotation. The second most definitely carries a negative connotation. The second connotes an aggressiveness and belligerance that isn’t present. The emotional content of words matters, Chris. You know this. If you are grading phil. papers in a 101 course and one paper uses loaded words heavily laden with emotional content, a red flag goes off in your head, doesn’t it? Both you (as a phd. student in philosophy) and myself (a high school English teacher) know the importance of this lesson. In fact, when I go through my logic unit for seniors, this is one of the first things I impress upon them. Using loaded words is a very common logical fallacy, and one that ought to be avoided, esp. by guys like you and me. To suggest he is “demanding” when he is doing no such thing unfairly stacks the deck with a word w/ negative connotations, when a neutral word does just fine and is more accurately descriptive.
2) what I don’t dispute is that people often use names and emotional words in place of argument, words and names that many times don’t even apply to the person they are talking to. What I do dispute is that they successfully communicate with such words. Just because someone often resorts to name calling and loaded language doesn’t mean they are “successfully communicating.” Chris, it is vastly important that people know the meaning of the words they use…maybe not a dictionary definition, granted, but at least something! This goes past our context too. For instance, when someone I’m talking to spouts slogans such as “you just gotta have faith,” I often ask them what they mean by “faith,” esp. if the person is a Christian who professes allegiance to the Bible. In that context, its important that they grasp the biblical definition, and whether or not what they are saying is in line w/ that. They often think it is, when most of the time its not.
….and don’t patronize me with the “lets take this slowly.” Don’t cop that sort of attitude. I’m attempting to come onto your blog and discuss with you. A little respect, as opposed to talking down, is in order.
I think homo (anal) sex is gross, yukky, disgusting, and if that makes me a bigot in anybody’s eyes, so be it. Oh and do what you want in private, but I won’t want to know the details. At least not too many! No religious importance to be attached to these remarks BTW.
Jorge: (2) is a reference to the epistle to the Romans. As for the sentence you ask me about, there’s a missing word it should be “certain texts.”
Rich: First, it’s absurd to say that using a word with strong connotations constitutes a logical fallacy, or that pointing out that such a word has been used is enough to show a statement is false. I hope your students aren’t coming out of your classes believing such things!
Second, in response to my point (2), you just ignored my question.
Third, I will be as patronizing as I please as long as you continue with the evasions and pretending you don’t understand what I’ve said.
jedward: Gay sex and anal sex are different things. There are gay couples that don’t have anal sex, and straight couples that do have it. In fact, there are probably more straight people having anal sex than gay people, just because straights vastly outnumber gays.
I’m attempted to apologize for potentially grossing you out with that revelation, but actually I think that would be pretty funny.
this is so true!, and it is not just the younger generation! my 54 yr old mother is against same sex marriage, BUT she has known gays and lesbians and loved them, and sees no problem…AND will admit (under pressure and obscurity) that they are born this way.. did you ever see the study about homophobic men and sexual arousal?? i think that study just about says it all..lol