Is personal taste bigotry?

[twocows]

Most certainly, no thanks to deviantART (and 4chan to a certain extent). The overweight people would feel appreciated about some of the artists' fetish for fat, but even they might feel their fanart could cross the line. In response to Keiran's Brony comment, the Pokemon fanbase is no different either. *points to Gardevoir R34*

Why do you think that unusual taste is sufficient reason to think worse of someone? Are a person's sexual interests what give them value as a human being?

 

[Pinkie-Dawn]

Why do you think that unusual taste is sufficient reason to think worse of someone? Are a person's sexual interests what give them value as a human being?

It's mostly due to amatuer drawings regarding these unusual tastes. While yes, a person's sexual interests is what give them value as a human being (ex: my foot fetish), but there has to be some sort of limit for any type of unusual taste if you don't want other people to look at you the wrong way and be accepted. Of course, I suspect you'll disagree with this statement and think there is no limit and that we shouldn't care what others think of you as long as you're happy.

 

[twocows]

It's mostly due to amatuer drawings regarding these unusual tastes. While yes, a person's sexual interests is what give them value as a human being (ex: my foot fetish), but there has to be some sort of limit for any type of unusual taste if you don't want other people to look at you the wrong way and be accepted. Of course, I suspect you'll disagree with this statement and think there is no limit and that we shouldn't care what others think of you as long as you're happy.

I suspect you made a mistake there and meant to say "a person's sexual interest are not what give them value as a human being." Otherwise, I think we have some much deeper issues on which we disagree.

I don't think it matters what people like. I don't think a person's sexual interests matter at all, provided they're not doing anything unethical. I do think people should keep those interests to themselves in most cases, though. Most people don't really want to hear about that kind of thing, especially if it's weird.

 

[Raine]

I don't think it matters what people like. I don't think a person's sexual interests matter at all, provided they're not doing anything unethical. I do think people should keep those interests to themselves in most cases, though. Most people don't really want to hear about that kind of thing, especially if it's weird.

That's the perspective that I have in regards to people sharing the details of their personal preferences, not necessarily their sexual interests like you were mentioning. Keeping everything to yourself would probably be the safest method in going about your social life, and why are people so interested in what your preferences are in the first place? There's no right or wrong in terms of choosing, and pursuing the kinds of people who you are attracted to.

I'll take myself for instance. I generally have a strong preference for individuals who are similar to myself; those who are Asian who (ideally) speak Cantonese, athletic to a certain extent or at least keep themselves fit along with mutual interests. From another person's perspective that most likely sounds somewhat discriminatory. Not sure if this plays any sort of role, and not to sound conceited, but in my mind, I feel that the individuals who are generally hurt by these specifications are those who are actually interested in me to begin with. Either that, or people have become extremely sensitive to each person having their own respective preferences.

 

[Shapshu]

I don't think it's in any way bigoted to apply whatever standards you have for attractiveness towards your dating. If you're only attracted to X group of people, you're only attracted to X group of people. I'm really uncomfortable with the line of argument that says it is bigoted, because the subtext seems to be, "You should be okay with being unfulfilled so that no one's feelings get hurt."

On the other hand . . .

Is it bigoted to assume that because you're not attracted to a certain group of people that they're inherently unattractive? Oh, yes. And I do think this is often the way the weight thing plays out. People don't just go, "I'm not attracted to fat chicks." There's usually a sense of, "I'm not attracted to fat chicks because they're so gross." And that really is an unpleasant attitude.

 

[Sopheria]

I don't think it's bigotry or discriminatory. There's nothing wrong with having preferences. It's only bigotry if you actually make a negative judgment on a person's character because they don't fit your preferences. Or worse yet, if it affected the way you treat them or you looked down on them for it. But if it's just a matter of "I don't want to date this person because people who ______ aren't my type", then that's not bad, as long as you recognize that it's simply that they don't fit your preferences, not that they're actually a bad person for it or what have you.

 

[Star-Lord]

I am speaking logically, without emotion

When one analyses issues of homophobia/racism/etc. they have to look it through an emotional lense because they are social constructs and social constructs are based on the fact that humans are a) social b) emotional. While there is empirical data on these sorts of things you have to take into account how emotions play in affairs because... we are emotional beings and not robots, and we can't just scoff it off by saying "I can do x they should too" because people are different and we have to hold those differences into account when we look at issues like this.

 

[Sir Codin]

"Is personal taste bigotry?"

NO.

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

I mean, ♥♥♥♥, you can't exactly pick who makes you feel funky or not. If a certain kind of trait doesn't make you attracted, it doesn't make you attracted. It's bigotry when you treat them differently because they are that way but you can't control who you're attracted to. Jesus Christ.

 

[twocows]

When one analyses issues of homophobia/racism/etc. they have to look it through an emotional lense because they are social constructs and social constructs are based on the fact that humans are a) social b) emotional. While there is empirical data on these sorts of things you have to take into account how emotions play in affairs because... we are emotional beings and not robots, and we can't just scoff it off by saying "I can do x they should too" because people are different and we have to hold those differences into account when we look at issues like this.

Bit of a side track here, but I think it's worth talking about and it's related to the main topic.

I agree that people will likely interpret such things in different ways based on their experiences and personality. The question, then, should be "how considerate can we reasonably expect people to be in a social setting?" That's a difficult question to answer. I don't have a useful answer; you'll have to decide what's reasonable for yourself. Keep in mind, though, that a lot of the problem is going to be ignorance, not malice, especially if the contentious statement is something most people wouldn't understand to be contentious.

Also, I think some kinds of speech should not need to take the feelings of others into account. Personal expression, for example. Your right to freely express yourself should not be burdened by any restrictions (outside of a few exceptions, such as outright lies or calls to violence), including what other people might think of your beliefs. If there's something wrong with someone's expressed beliefs or arguments, the correct response should be a rational rebuttal, not an attempt to censor expression on grounds that it's hurtful.

I also feel private conversations should be somewhat protected. US law describes what is known as a "reasonable expectation of privacy," which is used as a test to determine whether certain discussions or actions are protected under the fourth amendment. This is a very specific legal concept, but the idea is something I think we can usefully generalize to a lot of situations. If someone makes a statement that they can reasonably believe to be private but that statement is somehow leaked, I don't think it's fair to treat that statement the same way we treat something expressed publicly. Many things said in private are not fully thought out or even made seriously and I don't think it's fair to judge people on those kinds of statements. If it's something you take offense to, keep in mind that it may have been an intermediate position someone held as their understanding of a topic was evolving or something taken out of context.

This is a difficult topic. I think some folks are a bit too quick to dole out judgment in some of these cases. Most people aren't trying to be mean. On the other hand, there certainly are some people who act mean just because they enjoy the reaction other people give them. Those people are jerks and I'm not defending that kind of malicious behavior.

 

[Star-Lord]

words

A lot of this is... really stuff I don't care about. Sorry. I'll poke at some things though I guess to be nice.

What's in my head does not affect you unless you let it.

People have to look at why they think these things though, and it's important to do so!. You've already made an example with the rapist down below. Thinking these things in some cases are morally wrong and completely reprehensible. To apply this to the OP would mean that why do you find people of a different colour unattractive? To apply a label that "All black people aren't attractive to me" is racist. You are making a categorical judgement based on race, instead of realizing that... hey... some black people could be attractive?

I'm more concerned about freedom of thought and the ability to choose our own paths

Nobody is saying that you can't think it - It's like freedom of speech, people will just call you out on it if they disagree with what you're thinking/saying/doing.

words

A lot of this is stuff I can't really get behind too. I apologize. I just... I can't see myself having a discussion on it :(. I'll try to poke as well.

Also, I think some kinds of speech should not need to take the feelings of others into account. Personal expression, for example. Your right to freely express yourself should not be burdened by any restrictions (outside of a few exceptions, such as outright lies or calls to violence), including what other people might think of your beliefs. If there's something wrong with someone's expressed beliefs or arguments, the correct response should be a rational rebuttal, not an attempt to censor expression on grounds that it's hurtful.

The Canadian Constitution limits all rights to what is acceptable in a "free and democratic society" and that means we can diminish hate speech. Is it really that bad if we burdened someone's constitutional rights if we are protecting the constitutional rights of other people? It's just an example mind you.

 

[Kanzler]

I don't think claiming that "all black people are unattractive to me" is putting a label of any sort. We are talking about personal taste, after all. Such a statement is more so an expression of subjective partiality of what the speaker is attracted to. If a person makes such a claim, who's anyone else to tell them that they're "wrong"? Racial aesthetic preferences may be manifestations of a deeper racist mindset, but they, as symptoms, are not a moral issue. If they are a reflection of a racist personality, then it is the personality that should be addressed, not the dating preferences.

 

[Sir Codin]

The Canadian Constitution limits all rights to what is acceptable in a "free and democratic society" and that means we can diminish hate speech. Is it really that bad if we burdened someone's constitutional rights if we are protecting the constitutional rights of other people? It's just an example mind you.

That's the kind of "ends-justify-the-means" train of thought I just can't get behind. Like twocows said, an appropriate reaction to hate speech is a legitimate and logical rebuttal. Banning certain kinds of speech just because it rattles your jimmies opens up the door to all kinds of censorship and as much as I hate to jump on the slippery slope, it's the kind of excuse governments need.

 

[twocows]

The Canadian Constitution limits all rights to what is acceptable in a "free and democratic society" and that means we can diminish hate speech. Is it really that bad if we burdened someone's constitutional rights if we are protecting the constitutional rights of other people? It's just an example mind you.

Hate speech (or at least the USC's definition of it) is an exception to first amendment protections in the US. I am not a lawyer, but the legal interpretation of hate speech within the US is speech that incites violence. I agree that should be an exception to free expression. People have a right to be safe from bodily harm or the threat of it.

I don't think that people have a right not to be offended, though, which is what I was getting at. Under US law, they definitely don't have that right. Sometimes, offending people is necessary in the course of debate. For example, US slave owners were offended by the notion that they should be required to give up their slaves in the late 1800s.

Unfortunately, this does give jerks like WBC the right to continue doing what they do under US law (in fact, the SCOTUS ruled on that very specific case, 8-1 in favor of WBC's right to continue doing what they do). But their right to express their beliefs like that does not impinge on others' legal rights and protections, and limiting their speech would have negative consequences in much more justified cases. In the words of H. L. Mencke, "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."

 

[Star-Lord]

That's the kind of "ends-justify-the-means" train of thought I just can't get behind. Like twocows said, an appropriate reaction to hate speech is a legitimate and logical rebuttal. Banning certain kinds of speech just because it rattles your jimmies opens up the door to all kinds of censorship and as much as I hate to jump on the slippery slope, it's the kind of excuse governments need.

You clearly don't understand how constitutional law (Protecting someone's safety is different than "rattles your jimmies") works and you shouldn't try to have a discussion with it involved.

Hate speech (or at least the USC's definition of it) is an exception to first amendment protections in the US. I am not a lawyer, but the legal interpretation of hate speech within the US is speech that incites violence. I agree that should be an exception to free expression. People have a right to be safe from bodily harm or the threat of it.

Thankfully you do.

I don't think that people have a right not to be offended, though, which is what I was getting at. Under US law, they definitely don't have that right. Sometimes, offending people is necessary in the course of debate. For example, US slave owners were offended by the notion that they should be required to give up their slaves in the late 1800s.

I can agree with that.

Unfortunately, this does give jerks like WBC the right to continue doing what they do under US law (in fact, the SCOTUS ruled on that very specific case, 8-1 in favor of WBC's right to continue doing what they do). But their right to express their beliefs like that does not impinge on others' legal rights and protections, and limiting their speech would have negative consequences in much more justified cases. In the words of H. L. Mencke, "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."

I believe (Don't quote me) that the WBC was banned from entering Canada and bringing up their hateful speech. I could certainly make a case for it defiling our constitution and all that, and consequently how the American constitution should have a part that restricts people's freedoms/liberties in reasonable ways - but that's another topic for another time. I don't want to clog up this thread any further.

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

To address Daigonite and Moogles, my opinion is that sexual preferences are based on human psychology, some form of ingrained genetic factors and to an extent learnt behaviour. However, I also believe that we can get much more specific than saying genitals are the only factor that is acceptable for not even considering someone as a sexual object. It's not bigotry either, just personal choice, which is my stance on the thread topic.

Isn't that what I pretty much said? I just meant that if you go and call someone who's overweight and call them names and ♥♥♥♥, that's bigotry. It's not bigotry if you're just not attracted to overweight people. I was kinda trying to lampoon the crazy idea that's popped up lately that "If someone identifies as [gender] and you're dating them and you're technically in a relationship and technically are dating someone who fits your sexual orientation but you feel uncomfortable with their genitals then you're automatically transphobic" because that idea is ♥♥♥♥ing stupid and essentially says rape is a-okay if you're trans*. If you don't feel comfortable with someone's sex then you don't feel comfortable with someone's sex. It's not cool if you're going to be an ass about it outside of a relationship, but with a relationship, if you're not comfortable, then it's not going to work out.

Here to elaborate my opinion more succinctly:

I mean, ♥♥♥♥, you can't exactly pick who makes you feel funky or not. If a certain kind of trait doesn't make you attracted, it doesn't make you attracted. It's bigotry when you treat them differently because they are that way but you can't control who you're attracted to. Jesus Christ.

 

[Vix Axiom]

I don't think personal taste is bigoted. For example: I like red apples and my friend likes yellow apples. I don't like yellow apples and I refuse to eat them. Vice versa, my friend won't have anything to do with red apples.

Not wanting to socialize with a certain person because they are different in my opinion isn't bigoted. It's a matter of choice with whom you wish to fraternize with. I've also found that if you relate to others outside your original group, eventually you may develop traits similar to them in order to adapt to the environment.

I'm not saying you WILL become obese by hanging around others who are obese, but it's a reasonably high chance that you will. You're influenced by outside factors and therefore conform to the group.

Like daigonite up there said, it's not bigotry until you treat them different in their presence. Not wanting to do anything with a group is not immoral. If anything it's amoral.

 

[maccrash]

I don't think personal taste is bigoted. For example: I like red apples and my friend likes yellow apples. I don't like yellow apples and I refuse to eat them. Vice versa, my friend won't have anything to do with red apples.

that is a poor analogy because red apples do not have a breath or a pulse or feelings like humans do

 

[Vix Axiom]

that is a poor analogy because red apples do not have a breath or a pulse or feelings like humans do

And yellow apples do? Well that's just being bigoted against red apples! Check your appley privilege! /s

And it's more personification rather than an analogy. I believe it fits to be relevant. Whether it remains to be seen as serious as the discussion here is up to you.

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

that is a poor analogy because red apples do not have a breath or a pulse or feelings like humans do

Are you seriously trying to say that being unattracted to someone automatically makes you an ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥?

Are you one of those people who thinks that unless you're attracted to literally everyone that you're just a horrible person?

Anyways, I don't really agree with the idea that "you'll be obese if you hang out with obese people" but that's not even relevant. The reality is that being overweight, well, most people aren't physically attracted to that. And that's okay. But people can't harass you for being overweight. That's not okay. If someone shows concern about being overweight though, that's okay, because they don't want to hurt you, and frankly being obese is not healthy and can kill you. I think it's really crazy how we live in a world that would rather not "hurt your feelings" than help someone avoid very real consequences like diabetes, heart failure and stroke.