Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Bigot, Terrorist, Narrowminded
Everyone in elementary school knew me as “Eckel the elephant.” I was short and fat, or, as was acceptable to say in those days, I was considered “stocky.” Before I grew six inches one summer, I was a roly-poly kid who couldn’t climb a rope in gym class to save his life. The fact that I remember how I felt decades ago gives credence to the fact that name-calling hurts. Sticks and stones do break bones and words will always hurt people.
But I would like to suggest that the act of name-calling has not stopped. It continues in adulthood. When you call someone “narrowminded,” “a terrorist,” or a “bigot,” for instance, you are saying more about yourself than the person you wish to debase. To describe another person and their perspective in negative terms only does two things: it alienates you from the other person and displays your true character.
Take the word “bigot,” for instance. The word itself is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as “a person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs, who does not like other people who have different beliefs.” Or take the definition from Merriam-Webster. A bigot is “a person who is intolerantly devoted to her prejudices and treats members of other groups with hatred and intolerance.” So, when you call someone a “bigot,” who is the “bigot”?
I doubt very much that name-calling in politics moves individuals to change their views. I suspect the opposite is true: when attacked, people have a tendency to become immovable, doubling-down on their political postures no matter what. Sure, being called names when I was a kid hurt. Being called names made me commit to physical exercise. In adulthood, calling out name-callers is most important to me now. Truth in Two, this is Dr. Mark Eckel, no longer “Eckel the Elephant,” president of the Comenius Institute, personally seeking truth, without bigotry, wherever it’s found. [First published at MarkEckel.com]
Published in General
See Intimidation vs Persuasion.
Is it always wrong to be critical of people, even in a harsh way? I think of Jesus pronouncing the seven woes on the Pharisees and teachers of the law. He called them blind fools, blind guides, sons of hell, whitewashed tombs, a brood of vipers.
Jesus was similarly critical in the Gospel of John in various places, accusing them of not believing Moses and of not having the love of God in them, and even if being sons of the Devil.
Was He wrong to do so?
John the Baptist brought a similar method, as did the Apostles, such as Peter on Pentecost, when he accused the Jewish crowd of having killed Jesus.
Jesus’ critiques were a comeuppance for the religious, not pagans. His treatment of Gentiles was full of care and love. So, yes, critique and speak harshly to those who call themselves believers. But love those, like the rich man in Mark 10, with deep compassion, a message that began in Israel (Deut 10) and continues today.
Jerry isn’t big into love.
Agreed. People may change their minds about various issues, but it usually happens slowly over time. I don’t know anyone who changed their ideological beliefs because someone shouted insults at them.
You’re all a bunch of extremists.
I know I am.
And, as the kids on the playground used to say, “What does that make you?”
Putting aside the revisionist quoting of a time-honored aphorism, equating mean words with physical violence is out of touch with reality. Safteyism and, more generally, the feminization of the culture are “setting up a generation for failure.” A couple of guys even wrote a book about it.
Weak men create hard times. You know the rest.
Elephants are amazing creatures. Your detractors were not very well-educated.
I’ve been called an extremist ever since the days of Barry Goldwater. And it’s right. I am!
Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.
Does this definition mean only women can be bigots?
Evidently so. The future (of bigotry) is female.
Amusing aside: this is a misquotation of the Merriam-Webster definition. Misquotations are running rampant in the original post.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot