<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by GUWonder:
However, the fun does end when there is an argument being made that is bigoted in its approach and/or assumptions and/or attacks other FTers or whole groups of peoples not for their words, but merely for who they are. </font>
But who defines "bigot"? (And this, inter alia, is one of the problems with the current state of affairs in OMNI) In OMNI, I've seen others (and have myself) been called bigots (obvious TOS violations that went unsanctioned, BTW) by folks who disagree with the notion that Islam is the womb of terrorism, and poses a direct and credible threat to the US, notwithstanding other Islamics who claim to be "peaceful." Others call folks who disagree with the notion of gay marriage "bigots." Now, some people who advocate either or both of those positions may indeed be bigots in the classical sense, but others may have rational reasons for holding those viewpoints. To immediately form a reaction based on a cariacture stiffles true discussion and just fans the flame-wars.
While you may disagree with a poster, it does not automatically make them a bigot by their taking the non-PC viewpoint. Isn't that what "diversity" is all about?