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?

Well, if someone holds bigoted views against some group, then that does make them a bigot in that context. Is there something wrong with calling a spade a spade? I don't know. Most bigots are proud of being bigots vis-a-vis the "group" they dislike profoundly and probably wear the term proudly (when there are no consequences).

Omni is a 2 out of 10 on the brutality scale compared to other boards.

Most? I am curious. How do you know this?

It's easy to figure this out. Draw a diagram and divide the set into "proud bigots" and "not-proud bigots". Then further break down these subsets anyway you wish.

It's "most", because the remainder of the set are bigots who don't know they are bigots and eventually drop out when educated or when reason strikes. Bigots who know they are bigots (and publicly are proud of such or who are closet bigots) would change their mind if they were not so proud to think themselves right in their bigotry. So by extension, most bigots are proud of being bigots or they would set aside their bigotry once they examined the numbers and extended their empathy toward all human beings.

Look at the KKK... they will march with their hoods... but I doubt they will wear it to work.

[This message has been edited by GUWonder (edited Jan 22, 2004).]

But what of the anti-semitic bigots cloaking their hatred in some innane Israeli-"Palestinian" debate? Or the anti-Christian zealots cloaking their bigotry in some "seperation of church and state" debate?

Well there may be some of the former, but I see a lot more attempts to confuse criticism of a state's actions with bigotry against people of one religion than to realize what I will point out in my next sentence or two. When people criticize Israel, some want to label them as being anti-Jewish; but when people criticize the states of Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, I have yet to see someone say that is bigotry against Muslims. Criticizing a state is not a criticism of a religion or the practioners of said religions; and, as such, when one criticizes Israel or Saudi Arabia, it's not bigotry against a people based on religion; it's mostly an appropriate criticism based on state action/inaction.

In regards to the presence of anti-Christian sentiment on FT, that is a near complete cannard (or at least I have missed seeing it). Separation of church and state is fundamental to the United States and stands true to the Constitution and the prinicples of the Founding Fathers. If that, in and of itself, is considered anti-Christian bigotry, then I cannot help but .

[This message has been edited by GUWonder (edited Jan 22, 2004).]