Bigotry is Bigotry and all Bigotry Needs to Be Confronted

[MineralMan]

Wherever it occurs and in any form, bigotry should be called out and condemned. It doesn't matter what the bigotry targets or how large or small the group being attacked may be. Bigotry is simply wrong and needs to be confronted and rejected.

These days, in many venues, bigotry that relates to race and sexual orientation is roundly damned and isn't tolerated. That's a good thing, and has resulted in changes that reduce its acceptance by society. However, other bigotry often goes either unnoticed or is ignored by many people who would speak up loudly if racism or homophobia were in evidence. I see the following forms of bigotry frequently on the Internet, without seeing a solid wall of rejection from others:

Regional Bigotry - Treating everyone in a certain locality in the same negative way as everyone else in that area is regional bigotry. The American South is not made up only of people who are right-wingers and racists.
Ageism - Attacking age groups in general is bigotry. Not everyone in any age demographic is the same. Bigotry is wrong, if it is based on age alone. Attacking boomers or millenials in general is ageism.
Ableism - Why do we do this? Why do we use words like "retarded" or "crippled" and other related terms as pejoratives. Physical and mental disabilities have nothing to do with who the people are. Let's stop.
Sexism - Misogyny and all sex-related negative generalizations are simply bigotry. It is that simple. There should be no place for it in our discourse. No place at all.
Religious Bigotry - Some people have religious beliefs. Others do not. It is not beliefs that make the person; it is actions. It is individuals who have religious, sectarian, or no beliefs. Individuals. All Christians are not the same. All Muslims are not the same. All Atheists are not the same. Address the individual's actions, not their ability or inability to hold a religious belief.
Nativism - You're an American? Cool, but that is meaningless in terms of how you act and think. Your nationality or place of origin has nothing to do with anything but your nationality or place of origin. It's irrelevant otherwise.
Classism - Rich or poor, affluent or homeless, educated or not, each person is an individual. A rich person may be a true progressive and humanitarian and a poor person can be a complete asshole. The opposite can also be true. People are not the group. The group is made up of individuals.

Let's start dealing with people as the individuals they are. Lumping them into groups of any kind is a failure of logic. Let's start speaking when people treat entire groups as representing everyone in that group. That's my suggestion.

[beevul]

1. Should that include bigotry against gun owners and second amendment supporters?

Or should that get a pass like it normally does?

[MineralMan]

2. Many gun owners support strong gun controls.

I'm in that category. So, no. Mere ownership of firearms says nothing about political positions. As for 2nd amendment supporters, there are many interpretations of that amendment. I support the 2nd amendment, as written. We need official, organized, government-controlled militias, and bearing arms is part of that. I strongly oppose "shall issue" CCW and the current open carry nonsense. I also oppose laws that allow people to shoot and kill people simply because they feel "threatened" in some way, as in Florida and elsewhere. And yet, I own firearms.

So where do I fit in your characterization?

Individuals. I am an individual. If you want my opinion about something, just ask. I'll be happy to provide it.

[beevul]

24. Some do.

"As for 2nd amendment supporters, there are many interpretations of that amendment. I support the 2nd amendment, as written."

There is only one interpretation which is historically accurate. It happens to be the binding law of the land. But I'm not here to discuss that.

"We need official, organized, government-controlled militias, and bearing arms is part of that."

That's your opinion, though I'm not here to discuss that.

"So where do I fit in your characterization?"

My characterization of what? "Second amendment supporters"? When I use that term, I mean people who accept that the amendment was written as a restriction on governmental power as the preamble to the bill of rights confirms, and forbids infringement on the individual level as well as the collective level. In short, individual rights supporters. People who are "pro-gun". More specifically, those here on DU, myself included, who face anti-gun bigotry quite regularly.

What difference does it make though?

You said "Wherever it occurs and in any form, bigotry should be called out and condemned. It doesn't matter what the bigotry targets or how large or small the group being attacked may be. Bigotry is simply wrong and needs to be confronted and rejected."

That's pretty cut and dried.

[MineralMan]

26. "There is only one interpretation which is historically accurate."

That is simply not a true statement. Since it is the Supreme Court that is the arbiter of all constitutional interpretations, the fact that many firearms control laws have been left to stand is evidence that your interpretation is not necessarily the only valid one.

But, this thread is not a firearms thread, nor will I continue to discuss that issue in this thread. That's more a topic for the RKBA group, in which I do not participate.

Have a pleasant weekend.

[beevul]

33. Its a fact.

And its verifiable.

"Since it is the Supreme Court that is the arbiter of all constitutional interpretations, the fact that many firearms control laws have been left to stand is evidence that your interpretation is not necessarily the only valid one."

Just because a gun control law is allowed to stand, doesn't mean that the intent of the amendment becomes something other than what it was originally intended to be.

"But, this thread is not a firearms thread, nor will I continue to discuss that issue in this thread. That's more a topic for the RKBA group, in which I do not participate."

Fair enough, and agreed.

You have a pleasant holiday weekend as well.

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. Gun owners have made a decision to keep a deadly weapon

It's absurd to put that in the same category as the innate characteristics of people.

[beevul]

18. So you disagree with the OP?

"Wherever it occurs and in any form, bigotry should be called out and condemned. It doesn't matter what the bigotry targets or how large or small the group being attacked may be. Bigotry is simply wrong and needs to be confronted and rejected."

That's from the OP. It doesn't split the hairs that you attempt to. Beyond that, you're ignoring the parallel to regional bigotry. Generally, where one lives is a choice, not an "innate characteristic".


So which is it?

You disagree with the OP and support bigotry against people who make choices you disagree with.

Or

You agree with the OP, and you're dragging your feet.

So which is it?

[intaglio]

19. What a lovely dichotomy you have made

Perhaps you would like to try your hand at a real dichotomy one day.

[beevul]

21. Such is bound to happen when people try to have it both ways. N/T

[intaglio]

27. So you admit your point is a false dichotomy and therefore a logical flaw

Or are you just trying to be contrarian?

[beevul]

41. The poster I was responding to...

The poster I was responding to, tried to make a distinction when and where there was simply no distinction to make:

"It's absurd to put that in the same category as the innate characteristics of people."

There is no distinction to make, because owning a gun, like being a pro-gun person, is a CHOICE, just as it is a choice where one decides to live. It is a direct parallel to the regional bigotry described in the OP.

One can speculate why such an attempt to draw a false distinction was made.

One *might* speculate that it is because that poster has no problem with the bigotry I refer to.


That poster is free to clarify but remains silent thus far.

No false dichotomy there.

[intaglio]

42. And your point remains a false dichotomy

because you are conflating a group with a choice with groups that have no choice. You do not choose to be gay, you so not choose to be Jewish, you do not choose your gender identity.

You want us not to be bigoted against those with a choice like racists ... or gun owners

[beevul]

46. Uh huh.

"You want us not to be bigoted against those with a choice like racists ... or gun owners."

Or people that choose to live somewhere that a particular poster doesn't approve of.. Or had you missed that THAT was in the op?

Can I safely conclude that you support regional bigotry, since most people have a choice of where they live?

[MineralMan]

23. You seem to be confused about what bigotry is.

You asked about gun owners. I'm one of those, but my views on gun control are completely different from the views of many other individuals. Gun owners, like members of many groups, are individuals.

That someone owns firearms tells me almost nothing about that person, other than that person owns firearms. Bigotry would be making the assumption that that person holds views on other things that may not be true.

You see, bigotry is based on forming judgments on groups of people and assuming that all of the people in whatever group you are discussing believe the same things. That's the mistake of bigotry. It's a simple, stupid logical error in all cases.

I hope that helps you understand what bigotry actually is, rather than what you appear to think it is.

[NutmegYankee]

28. By your definition there are perfect examples.

"You see, bigotry is based on forming judgments on groups of people and assuming that all of the people in whatever group you are discussing believe the same things. That's the mistake of bigotry. It's a simple, stupid logical error in all cases."

Take the accusation that all gun owners own guns because their gentalia is undersized and they must compensate. Or the accusation that people who own guns only do so because they want kill people. No other rational reason is provided in those nasty bigoted statements. They are applied to anyone/everyone who owns firearms.

[MineralMan]

32. OK. I would disagree with any such statement.

And I never make such characterizations. You have voiced your dislike for that sort of bigotry. Good. You're doing what I suggested in my OP.

I don't participate in firearms discussions, generally. You apparently do. Call out bigotry when you see it. That's my advice. We have no argument here.

[beevul]

29. Thats one definition, but not the only one.

"You see, bigotry is based on forming judgments on groups of people and assuming that all of the people in whatever group you are discussing believe the same things."

Thats one definition, but not the only one.


big·ot·ry


/ˈbigətrē/

noun

noun: bigotry; plural noun: bigotries

bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.


Am I to understand that your definition is the one you're concerned about, and the others not so much, after you said "Wherever it occurs and in any form, bigotry should be called out and condemned. It doesn't matter what the bigotry targets or how large or small the group being attacked may be. Bigotry is simply wrong and needs to be confronted and rejected."


"Bigotry would be making the assumption that that person holds views on other things that may not be true."

Happens regularly to pro-gun posters on an individual basis, and on a group level. How many examples would you like?


"I hope that helps you understand what bigotry actually is, rather than what you appear to think it is."

I understand perfectly what it is.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

55. There are many issues where it's fine to be intolerant of those who hold different opinions.

No-one should be condemned purely on the basis of groups they belong to.

But it's fine to hold people's actions or opinions against them.

[passiveporcupine]

34. Just curious

Would you call it bigoted to fear and distrust or hate a group like Boko Haram, or ISIS?

Some fear and distrust is legitimate. Anyone belonging to an extreme group that promotes hatred or fear, or causes "fear" in average citizens, may deserve that "bigotry".

It's not the same as say "hating all republicans" which I do see a lot of here, and is a form of bigotry. Not all republicans are the same. Some actually deserve to be feared and hated because of the things they would do to this country if they could.

It's not the same as fearing 'anti-vac' people because it leaves your own children more vulnerable to contagious disease.

It's not the same as fearing "anti-abortion" crowds who surround women's clinics and try to scare off the patients and sometimes shoot doctors or bomb clinics...or even the anti-gay group like the Westborough Babtist church which promotes bigotry toward gays.

There are valid reasons to fear and distrust people, or even to despise and hate some...and not all 2nd amendment believers or gun owners are deserving of that fear or distrust...but some are.

People who deliberately parade around in public with their long guns, in restaurants, stores, malls...are terrorizing people who are not comfortable around guns, and they don't care. They don't even really believe in the second amendment either, IMHO. They twist it and use it as a defense to keep their toys.

[beevul]

36. Interesting question.

"Would you call it bigoted to fear and distrust or hate a group like Boko Haram, or ISIS?"

Based on their behavior, that of waterboarding and beheading people who don't share their beliefs, because they don't share their beliefs, for example, I'd call it a reasonable reaction to tangible things they have done to others. What those groups have done, rises well beyond the standard of "I don't like what you're doing".

"Some fear and distrust is legitimate. Anyone belonging to an extreme group that promotes hatred or fear, or causes "fear" in average citizens, may deserve that "bigotry"."

What is an "average citizen"? As far as I know, the average citizen of this country isn't someone that fears guns or gun carry. Those that actually fear guns and gun carry are a minority, and a small one at that. I have never actually met one single person in 40+ years, that was genuinely afraid of guns.

[passiveporcupine]

47. I didn't say "fears" guns

I said is uncomfortable around guns. A lot of people who are not used to handling guns are uncomfortable around them, because they know "accidents happen" too often with guns. And a majority of people are not comfortable with other people walking around in public carrying militaristic looking weapons to protest.

I am not "afraid" of guns. I have shot a 22 rifle at targets and found it enjoyable. I'm still not comfortable around guns in public, because I've seen and heard too much of the unsafe handling of guns, especially when combined with drinking.

I was shot at when hiking in the mountains, because the shooting party was drinking and shooting in the twilight, thinking they were alone in the woods. They weren't. My dogs and I were coming home from a long day hike, on a logging road, and the bullets they were shooting were ricocheting off the trees around me. I was terrified, as I was too far away from them for them to hear my whistle and there were low hills between us so they couldn't see me.

Guns are not the problem. It's the people who feel the need to always carry them for protection. This is a civilized country, for the most part, and we don't need to walk around with weapons to defend ourselves in most cases.

[beevul]

48. Ok.

"I said is uncomfortable around guns. A lot of people who are not used to handling guns are uncomfortable around them, because they know "accidents happen" too often with guns. And a majority of people are not comfortable with other people walking around in public carrying militaristic looking weapons to protest."

We don't live in nation where 50% +1 can make such things unlawful. Like it or don't like it, that's the way it is, and we are probably better off because of it. Majority rule is great, except to those not in the majority. I'm not so sure any "majority" of people are uncomfortable with others carrying guns, at that. I expect its more like a loud minority. If it was a majority as you suggest, this wouldn't have happened:

"Guns are not the problem. It's the people who feel the need to always carry them for protection. This is a civilized country, for the most part, and we don't need to walk around with weapons to defend ourselves in most cases."

While some of that may be true, I can not presume to decide the needs of others, and I wont.

[madinmaryland]

61. Sorry. But to conflate the choice of owner a gun to things that people do not have a choice of is

patently absurd.

The last time I checked, people do not have a choice about their skin color, their sex, their orientation, where they were born, but the do have a choice as to whether they own a gun or where or if they go to a church.

I will call out those people who's choices I do not agree with and if those choices involve something against things that people do not have a choice in.

[beevul]

65. No. Whats patently absurd, is to ascribe to me actions I never did.

"But to conflate the choice of owner a gun to things that people do not have a choice of is patently absurd."


No. Whats patently absurd, is to ascribe to me actions I never did. See "regional bigotry" in the OP. Its the very first example of bigotry cited, so I don't know how you could have missed it. People generally have a choice where to live. People generally have a choice whether or not to own a gun. If one belongs on that list, then both belong on that list. They are directly, perfectly, parallel.

You're either another one that didn't thoroughly read the OP, or you're deliberately saying what you're saying in spite of having read it, and ignoring the perfectly direct parallel to regional bigotry that bigotry towards gun owners and pro-gun folks is, in order to attack me because I believe in gun rights and you don't - which is the text book definition of bigotry.

So you tell me, which is it?

Oh, and will you be accusing the OP of conflating things people have a choice of I.E. where they live (regional bigotry) with things people have no choice in?

(not that I really want you to, because the OP is correct)

The OP actually made a list, containing both things which people have a choice in, and things people don't. Yet you stretch and contort and spin to attack me that didn't.

[bvf]

22. Agreed!

But religious belief isn't any more innate. Is my view that the religious (in most cases having been raised from early childhood to think that way) are deluded a form of bigotry?

No snark here. I'm genuinely curious, since the term "bigotry" often gets trotted out in situations where "disagreement" should do.

[muriel_volestrangler]

30. I do regard religion as a decision on the part of the believer

and thus something that can be criticised, like opinions about guns (if the person has not been given a chance to choose their religion because of it being forced on them as a child, then they've been abused and should first be helped to make a free choice about what they think). I do tend to reject accusations of 'bigotry against religion', because I regard criticism and opposition to it as being similar to criticism or opposition to political views.

[bvf]

50. Agreed again. 100% . n/t

[JustAnotherGen]

37. I agree

And we are gun owners who strongly support - STRONGLY - support extreme (yep extreme) gun control measures.

[lumberjack_jeff]

31. Bigotry over what you are, rather than what you choose to do, should be held to a higher standard

I'm not keen on broad brush insults against peoples religion, hobbies, or favorite sports teams, but they're not the same thing.

[NuclearDem]

35. Oh do please tell us the struggles of your people.

[madinmaryland]

62. That is NOT bigotry. It is an opinion. Gun owners made a "choice" to own guns, and it is

one they have to live with.

I had not choice in becoming a male Caucasian.

[beevul]

66. Heres the textbook definition of bigotry for you, sport.

big·ot·ry


/ˈbigətrē/

noun

noun: bigotry; plural noun: bigotries

bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

Type the word "bigotry" into google, and that's the very first definition you'll find.

"Gun owners made a "choice" to own guns, and it is one they have to live with."

I guess you feel the same way about regional bigotry too, since people have a roughly equal degree of choice where to live as they do to buy a gun.

Pat yourself on the back.

[BainsBane]

64. Petition to become a protected class under the Civil Rights Act

Along with Hummer owners and swimming pool manufacturers

[La Lioness Priyanka]

4. not all bigotry is equally the same. some bigotry is structural and causes much more destruction

others are interpersonal and while it may be offensive, its not the same thing

do you see southerners get shot for being southerners? denied the right to marry? paid less for equal work?

[JTFrog]

5. +1 n/t

[MineralMan]

6. I don't disagree. But bigotry is bigotry, and should not be tolerated.

Of course there are degrees in the affect of different types of bigotry. But we should speak out against all bigotry and not tolerate it in silence. Everyone benefits from that.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

9. Conflating structural and incredibly violent societal

Problems with minor irritation also does no one any favors

[MineralMan]

25. It's all a matter of degree, I think.

In all of the cases I mentioned above, bigotry can lead to serious consequences for the person at which that bigotry is aimed.

Not every expression of bigotry results in severe harm, but any bigotry can do so.

I believe that bigotry itself is the problem, regardless of its target.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

40. yes, but a stomach upset is not ebola. nor should it be called ebola. nt

[MineralMan]

59. Both, however, are health disorders.

Bigotry is a general word, I think. The common cold and stage four lung cancer are both diseases. Bigotry, I believe, is a word in the same category as the word disease. It can be applied to many negative things, but of varying degrees of potential harm. That is how I am using the word in this thread.

[AverageJoe90]

57. Yes. And may I add.....

Structural racism is very real. But on an intrapersonal level, anyone can be a racist, and express racist views. For example, Louis Farrakhan is a raving anti-Semite who thinks that Jews were behind the slave trade. Kamau Kambon wanted to exterminate all white people. There are a fair number of Palestinian extremists who want to murder every single Jewish person in the Levant. There are Greeks who think of Turks as barbaric scum(and vice-versa), etc.

So, no, racism doesn't just come in one shade or culture, no matter who's in charge of any country. It's a human problem.

[HereSince1628]

63. Persons with mental disorders whose families call for help are shot regularly

Suggesting chauvinistic/bigoted language contributes to a stigmatized environment that produces 'street smart' cops who do such shooting is considered trolling on DU

Few people realize that nearly a decade has been found to be lost from life-expectancy of every mental disorder that has been examined.

Yet stigmatizing language about the mentally ill on DU is considered essential free speech that doesn't really hurt anyone.

[NutmegYankee]

7. Obesity

Now that we are finding many environmental/chemical factors related to obesity, and research showing that exposure to certain compounds can cause damage to DNA such that offspring 3-4 generations later can all show obesity, it's time to stop treating victims like shit.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-we-inherit-the-environmental-damage-done-to-our-ancestors-video/

[MineralMan]

11. OK. I can agree with that, for sure.

[mcar]

8. K&R

Bigotry is bigotry. It's really that simple.

[ZombieHorde]

10. OK. I will confront your anti-bigotry bigotry!

Just kidding.

[MineralMan]

14. Confront away!

All replies are welcome.

[boston bean]

15. STOP! LOL

[AverageJoe90]

12. Excellent OP, MineralMan. Kudos to you. n/t

[MineralMan]

13. Thanks for the kind words!

I'm sure I missed some things in the OP, so others can add their issues. And I don't want to make this about DU, since the issues have a much broader reach than that.

[albino65]

16. This does not mean

that I have to like Wolverines, Badgers, or Gophers.

[MineralMan]

17. Wolverines and Badgers tend to be

aggressive animals, so I avoid them. Actually, I've never even encountered a wolverine. They don't appear to be in my area, but occur farther north. I've found that avoiding them is simple, so I leave them to their own devices.

Gophers, on the other hand, are not aggressive creatures, although they can be really annoying if they take up residence in your lawn or agricultural plantings. There, they need to be controlled. Elsewhere, they're rather interesting little rodents.

That said, if you're talking about sports teams, I favor the Cornhuskers of Nebraska, and will be watching their season opener in about an hour. Go Big Red! The teams you mention will fall in defeat to them, I feel certain.

[albino65]

20. well said n/t

[beevul]

44. Any wild animal can be agressive.

But wolverines and badgers can be very loveable animals:

I think on some level, all mammals play and have fun.

We are fortunate to live where there are badgers, and snap the occasional photo, though I don't have any handy.

[madinmaryland]

52. As a Buckeye fan I abhor wolverine, badger, and golden gopher fans!!

[albino65]

53. OH

[brer cat]

38. You always have thoughtful OPs, MineralMan.

This is no exception, and it is needed, sorry to say, even on this site for progressives.

K&R

[DrDan]

39. well said - I am often amazed at how, here on DU, I can read posts

expressing outrage over the Washington "Redskins" name - then read posts about those from "Flori-duh" or other places south, or attacking those who hold strongly religious beliefs, or those who have simply been on earth a bit longer than the average DUer.

As you clearly state, bigotry is bigotry and should not be tolerated by us individually, or through formal rules of the forum.

[Louisiana1976]

43. Exactly. We should not tolerate intolerance.

[4b5f940728b232b034e4]

45. And arguing that bigotry is not bigotry is bigotry

Period.

[Aerows]

49. Treat people as human beings and individuals

I very much like the sound of that.

[JustAnotherGen]

51. I love this

Thank you!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

54. What do you mean by "bigotry"?

It's a word I try to avoid using, except when talking to audiences I'm sure aren't going to challenge me on it, because I'm never entirely sure what it means. I've never been able to come up with a definition it takes me more than a few seconds to find counterexamples to.

[MineralMan]

56. I hesitate to create definitions. It's not really my

specialty. For me, though, bigotry is basically a dislike or hatred for people who are part of some definable group, typically a group that one is part of not necessarily by choice in most cases. It is based on some general view of that group as undesirable or detestable, but without any logical or demonstrable reason.

I believe that bigotry is illogical and often something expressed without any real thought at all.

I hope that helps, but I'm sure there are gaping holes in my definition.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

67. I think that you're at least close to a sufficient condition.

I think that if membership of a group is involuntary, then dislike or hatred of people based on membership of that group can probably pretty much always be termed bigotry.

So that's a reasonable starting point.

But it's still fairly far short of being a necessary condition for an opinion to be bigoted, because it excludes almost all forms of hatred on grounds of religion or opinion, and it's there that things get really tricky and controversial. There are certain opinions on, for example, women's rights or gay rights, that I think it's entirely reasonable to hold against people, and that are strongly promoted by certain religions, but there are also situations where I think it clearly is reasonable to describe holding someone's religion against them as bigoted.

One possible distinction is to say that it's reasonable to hold someone's opinions against them, but not their identity - it's bigoted to condemn someone simply for calling themselves Catholic, say, but there are certain points of the teachings of the catholic church (and all other religions) that it's not bigoted to condemn someone for holding.

But that ends up in a situation of "the only good X is a bad X" - it's fine to belong to a given religion, provided you're somewhat heterodox - which is still slightly awkward.


Obviously, you don't have to have a definition which covers every possible edge case. But I worry at such a blanket condemnation of something without a fairly clear explanation of what it is and isn't.

[MineralMan]

68. Bigotry against a religion is interesting.

What I observe is that people often use too large a category. They refer to Christians, Muslims, Mormons, or whatever as though those religions are uniform and homogeneous. By lumping all people who call themselves Christians, for example, into the same group, and then assuming that all hold the same opinions and morality, the error is clear. Without much better qualifying information, their dislike of one sect of Christianity, for example is turned into a dislike of Christians in general. I've seen that many times on discussion forums.

And that is at the heart of bigotry, I think. It is a failure to actually understand who an individual is and simply assigning individuals to groups. If the group is disliked, then anyone who is assigned to that group by the bigot is then disliked.

The larger the group one assigns, the more likely the dislike is unwarranted, it seems to me. It seems to apply to most situations that characterize bigotry, I think.

"Some of my best friends are {group}, but..." is how it often goes.

[stupidicus]

58. yep, I experienced some recently here

a few times actually, when posters decided to baselessly declare my nic to be indicative of who and what I am as opposed to serving as an identifier of who and what they are for having done so.

That's why I chose and have used it for over a decade now. There are few things more amusing to me than someone declaring "stupidity" while being wholly incapable of demonstrating any beyond their own.

That's pretty much as stupid as stupid can get on the spectrum of a lack of intelligence and/or care, no? I thought it would and it turned out to be an easy out for stupid rightwingers when they ran outta rope, but I never thought it would be similarly used by so many lefties.

And shouldn't the truly stupid be afforded the same tolerance as all the others listed here, as opposed to being mindlessly if not maliciously ridiculed, and particularly by those stupidly mining for iron pyrite they think is gold? It is after all, a condition found in the "ableism" group, no?

I suppose I should shed my tolerance for those kinda people, and start using the jury system to test how widespread or not the hate and intolerance for stupid people like that around here is.

[MineralMan]

60. I'm afraid I can't relate your post to this thread

in any sensible way. Sorry.

[stupidicus]

69. of course not

that was predictable and anticipated.