Posted by The Rt. Rev. Mark Luljak
February 15, 2011 -
836 views
As I lay here waiting for my system migration to copy about 70GB of data, I thought I'd address something that's been percolating in my head for a few days.
I'd like to talk about respect, prejudice, and bigotry.
First, respect...
Respect, for me, comes in two flavours: inherent (often implicit), and earned. I was raised in such a way that the word "respect" was drilled into me pretty much until I moved out of my parents' place at age 22. One of those things that came back to bite my parents at times was their insistence that respect is earned. I'll get back to that bit...
Now, I have automatic respect for everyone, unless they wrong me. That respect is inherent and implicit. They're a fellow human being, and they deserve the respect that my fellow man deserves. Basic human rights, dignity, being treated decently. People have that much coming to them just by existing. But it doesn't go much beyond that without being earned. That's "tier 1" respect.
The type of respect one earns (at least with me) is that which is given after observation of their way of doing things and living. Even if I don't agree with them on some points, if they at least try to be a decent person, be kind, care for others, all that good stuff, then they're likely to earn tier 2 of respect from me. That entitles them to special consideration, which varies in form from friendship to admiration, things like that. That's "tier 2" respect.
In my opinion, people are not deserving of tier 2 respect without earning it. Parent? Nope. I can cite many parents that I wouldn't grace with the title--they're breeding units that don't care about their kids, and I don't respect them on a tier 2 level. I respect them on a tier 1 level, but that's it. Authority figures? Ditto. As a general rule, tier 2 is something you have to earn, no matter how entitled you feel you are to respect simply because you hold some credential, hold a position of authority (often misused or abused), or managed to procreate. That's not enough. It's what you do that matters. It's how you live.
But keep in mind that even if someone doesn't pass muster for earning tier 2 respect, they still have tier 1 respect coming from me.
Okay, on to prejudice. I've recently been called a bigot. That's inaccurate, in my opinion. There is a fairly lengthy road trip from prejudice to bigotry, in my opinion. I cite dictionary.com's definitions:
Prejudice:
1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand orwithout knowledge, thought, or reason.
2. any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable orunfavorable.
3. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.
And I'll cop to that any day. I do make unfavourable opinions about people. Sometimes those opinions leave me feeling hostile, although I don't tend to act on such things, being a pacifist.
Bigot:
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
For me, those two things are not the same. Yes, I have unwarranted, unfavourable opinions about people, even groups of people. That doesn't automatically mean that I'm utterly intolerant of their creeds, beliefs, or opinions. It doesn't mean I'm hateful towards them. It doesn't mean that I try to harm them in any way.
All it means, is that I have a negative opinion...warranted or unwarranted. Sometimes it is warranted, even if it started off unwarranted. I've started off with a stereotype as the basis, and certain parties have done nothing but validate that stereotype. It seems that people forget that stereotypes became stereotypes for a reason--there's often some truth to them, or was at some point in time.
Does my being prejudiced against someone mean that they're forever doomed to tier 1 respect only? No. Absolutely not. I've had people against whom I was initially prejudiced prove themselves worthy of my tier 2 respect, and I've given it.
I am not utterly intolerant of anyone other than fools. I feel nothing but contempt for fools, and do not suffer them lightly. That's not likely to change in this lifetime. And yet, even a complete and utter fool is deserving of tier 1 respect. Good luck on ever hitting tier 2, but they at least get tier 1. Everyone does.
The bottom line is that, while I am more than candid about being prejudiced, I am not a bigot. I am not utterly intolerant of anyone but fools. People are entitled to their opinions, beliefs, creeds, etc. More power to them. That doesn't mean I have to like them for it. It doesn't mean that they automatically get tier 2 respect. They automatically get tier 1 respect, same as everyone else, until they earn a higher level.
I'm entirely sick and tired of this PC trend that says that being prejudiced is somehow inherently wrong, or even evil. It's not. It's subjective. It's often irrational. But it is what it is--and that's nothing more than an opinion or viewpoint, for better or worse, right or wrong. And prejudice still does not automatically make someone a bigot.
Even, for the sake of argument, were that true, so what? What is a bigot? Again, the definition simply says someone who is utterly intolerant of someone's beliefs, creeds, or opinions. Okay, fine. That still doesn't tack in being hateful. That doesn't tack in harming someone. Bundling in actions to the base definition is an act of convenience by those who are prejudiced against people that are prejudiced. I've heard someone recently make the argument that there's a difference between being prejudiced against someone for an inherent trait with which they were born, and being prejudiced against someone for something they choose to do--like being prejudiced. For my money...hogwash. It may satisfy definition three, but I'm often working off of definiton one. It does not automatically follow, unless one knows the full context of the prejudice.
However, the definition of bigot makes no distinction between types of bigotry. There is pure and simple utter intolerance, and it's towards someone's beliefs, creeds, or opinions. There's no mention of race, sexual orientation, or any number of things in that definition. And I've been accused of being a bigot on those grounds, several times on this site. The fact is, people are extending the definitions to suit their preferences. And that's fine, when stated as opinion. When it's made as a flat-out absolute statement of what I am, and it's false by very definition, it's called libel.
Ironically, those that have called me a bigot are often utterly intolerant of my prejudiced opinions. That does, by definition, make them the bigots, not I. The definition says nothing of traits, birthrights, etc., or any of the other rubbish I've been told, ad nauseum. Those were extended definitions, manufactured by people that couldn't be bothered to get their facts straight.
Even were I actually in the wrong, I'd still be proud. Why? Because I'm honest about it. I have no hypocrisy regarding my prejudices. They're out in the open. I've always maintained that it's quite possibly a safer bet to side with a card-carrying member of the KKK than it is a politician. At least the Klan member is up-front about what they believe, and there's no pretense. I'm not big on hate. I don't actually hate anyone, as far as I know. Hate is one of those overused words; it's a very strong term. I may vehemently dislike someone, but as far as actually hating someone to the degree that I would take action against them in some harmful form? No, that's not me. So as long as someone's not actually practising hateful activity, be it action or speech, I'm going to side with the honest person that can admit their prejudices, rather than those who pretend they have none at all.
And I'll say this: I firmly believe that people that claim they're not at all prejudiced are flat-out lying. They're either saints, or they're lying. I look at a claim like that about the same way I look at claims by people that they've never pirated a piece of software, a song, a movie, etc. It's not even realistic enough to give credence to such a claim. My credulity only stretches so far.
I hope this clears up where I stand, and where I don't. I think people have applied labels to me that are inaccurate and overreaching. The reality is that, while I may disagree with someone, be averted to their behaviour, lifestyle, opinions, etc., I fully support their right to their opinions, behaviour (as long as it's not harmful to others), lifestyles, etc. They get tier 1 respect--even if they prove themselves a complete and utter fool in my view.
Feel free to disagree. But try living without the handy-dandy LabelMatic[tm] Extended Definition Edition. You might find you make yourself look less silly and judgemental than when you're busy utterly blasting someone for their beliefs.
