1 2 3
They didn't "unlawfully arrest" you to obtain your ID. ... make sure the buddy pulled over the right car (you).

Where did /that/ quote come from?
I know this started with words utttered in the UK, but still want to commment.

This is one of these English words that have no ... the biggest component of bigotry, I think, with intolerance and

In the USA, intolerance is the biggest component of bigotry these days, and the original meaning, of having ones mind ... their mind and their ways, and that they have believed that for 50 years or more. I"m one of them.

But isn't that what hypocrisy is? Knowing that you're not necessarily right, but persisting in your pretense? That was always my intuitive understanding of the crux of the term 'bigot' - that bigots are fanatically intolerant, but insecure and pretending at the same time. Because if they were not, it would make them simply true believers, fanatics in other words.
News stories I just saw one last week even though they are not very frequent about Klansmen, ... who say now that they were wrong, and are now are asking for forgiveness, just confirms this view by Americans.

hypocrisy added to the mixture. The (un)suitability of that translation was noticed and discussed in soc.culture.bulgaria.

Is that written in English or Bulgarian?

It was discussed in Bulgarian. The translated 'fanatic' has the same meaning in both languages. The discussion was centered on the fact that it is not an exact translation, but is probably the closest single-word one, given that the term 'bigot' does not exist in Bulgarian. Quotes from all existing free online English dictionaries were thrown around in the course of the discussion.
You'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone.

What does this mean?

That in order to e-mail me, you have to delete 'crazy' from the address. But leave 'div', which means 'crazy' or 'wild' in Bulgarian. (Actually, this is not exactly true - you can e-mail me by just hitting 'reply', but I won't see the e-mail, as I check that account about once every two months or so.)

You'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone.
Whoever bans a book, shall be banished. Whoever burns a book, shall burn.
This is one of these English words that have no ... better than 'fanatic'. Fanaticism is the biggest component of bigotry,

Oh, I don't think so. A person can be a bigot without being fanatical about it. I think of fanatics as being devoted to a cause. Bigots don't have causes. Just strong dislikes.

Why would that be something bad? Everybody is entitled to their dislikes. It becomes a negative quality, only if it is fanatical and hypocritical. At least that's how I see it.
I think, with intolerance and hypocrisy added to the mixture.

Again, I don't see bigots as hypocritical. Some are; the ones who pretend to accept. Many, though, are openly bigoted and make no pretense about it.

You lost me here. Accept what? Hypocrisy is stating a belief without truly believing it. For instance, a racist is a bigot, if he doesn't truly believe that his race is superior, but perseveres because of his hatred of the other races. But if he truly believes it, and has no doubts, he's not a bigot, just a fanatic. That's how I understand the term.

You'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone.
Whoever bans a book, shall be banished. Whoever burns a book, shall burn.
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Where did /that/ quote come from?

Wow. It's from another newsgroup. I don't remember copying it to my clipboard, but okay, I must have done that. What's amazing is that I don't remember pasting it into this post. I wonder if I intended to paste something else but forgot to or failed to correctly copy it to the clipboard.
I know this started with words utttered in the UK, ... that for 50 years or more. I"m one of them.

But isn't that what hypocrisy is? Knowing that you're not necessarily right, but persisting in your pretense?

I don't know why you call that "that". My previous paragraph issn't descirbing a person knowing that he himself is not necessarily right. Bigots are sure they're right, but that's not the part of their personality that "bigot" refers to**. I"m just saying that "bigot" in the US doesn't refer to being unwilling to change one's mind, but other words do refer to that.
**Both tolerant people and civil rights activists are sure they're right too, and they're not about to change their mind either, but nobody calls them bigots.
Plus I'm not aware of any bigots who are just pretending to feel the way they do.
That was always my intuitive understanding of the crux of the term 'bigot' - that bigots are fanatically intolerant, but insecure and pretending at the same time.[/nq]Those who don't like their views are probably happy to imagine that they are insecure and pretending**, but I've never heard that before, at least as part of the definition. It probably was true, may still be, that some of those bigoted against Negroes for example felt that they were at the bottom of the pile of white people and if they weren't better than Negroes at least, they weren't better than anyone. If that's what you mean by insecure, I'm sure it applied to lots of them, but racism in the US wasnt' and isn't just an attribute of the poor or uneducated whites, or even the lower middle class.

It wasn't 100% for any group, but it applied to every group, including the white uppper-income, educated, with long pedigrees, high-level jobs, and those considered uppper class. The same thing is true for antismitism, or Jew-hatred, whichever you call it. Those are the two prejudices I know the most about.**Just as it makes gay people happy to imagine that those who don't like them are insecure and pretending, in this case pretending that they don't have gay feelings themselves. That's probably the origin of and even more likely the appeal of the word homophobia, which refers to someone with a phobia against homosexuals. Not just someone who thinks that homosexual activities are prohibited, or who dislike gay people, but one who fears them. And what does he fear, they think? That he himsaelf has homosexual tendencies and would become a practicing homosexual if he's not careful.

Creation of that word was a master stroke of public relations, just as the Peace Movement in the US against the Viet Nam war had a master stroke of public relatins when they adopted the "V" made by the middle and index fingers as their symbol of the peace movement. The very symbol Churchhill and millions of others had used for Victory, they used for Peace, as if peace (and withdrawal from Viet Nam) were victory. At least for those who remembered what Churchhill meant by V, and even though I was born after the war, I knew what he meant and many did.
But I digress.
Because if they were not, it would make them simply true believers, fanatics in other words.[/nq]I think bigots are true believers. But as someone said, they aren't all fanatics by any means. Some don't talk about it at all, where the majority, or the boss, will give them a hard time if they do. Most anti-Negro bigots didn't belong to the Klan, certainly didn't attend lynchings (probably disapproved of lynchings, and probably the Klan too) but did he want a Negro family living next door, no. Did he have to do anything, not even fanatical, to keep a Negro family from living next door, No.

He probably didn't have to do anything at all, because no real-estate agent would show a Negro family the house next door, the owner next door wouldn't sell to them (even though he wasn't a fanatic either. All he had to do was say No.), some places there were restrictive covenants in the deed which made it illegal to sell to Negroes (that was overturned by new laws and the courts, such clauses are invalid now.) and if some Negro family got past all that, someone might set their house afire.

That last act is done by a fanatic. We do agree on what fanatic means, right?
News stories I just saw one last week ... view by Americans. Is that written in English or Bulgarian?

It was discussed in Bulgarian. The translated 'fanatic' has the

Then I can't read it.
same meaning in both languages. The discussion was centered on the fact that it is not an exact translation, but is probably the closest single-word one, given that the term 'bigot' does not exist in Bulgarian.

Bigot is an unusual word in my view, in that it originally did have a meaning pretty close to stubborn, but with additional connotations. It's like a jar of peanut butter with the jelly already in the jar, or succotash, corn and peas? together. There are endless combinations of things or ideas, but only a few get their own words.

Hmmm, what I should have said at the start is that in the US, bigot means racist. It also means someone who hates someone because of his religion or national origina, and for those who disapprove of doing so, it means someone who hates someone because of his sexual orientation. But the simplest meaning is racist (sort of considering a religion or nation to be the same as a race, so that racist can apply to all of that.) One reason that the notion of stubbornness is gone is that anti-racists are just as stubborn, or people that believe the works of Shakespeare were written by Bacon are just as stubborn, but no one calls them bigots.
It woudl be better than making up the examples just above to go back to Peter's definition of bigot, the first answser to the OP.

I didn't even notice until just now that his def. is specifically British, bur iirc it's the same as in America (my browswer won't work now, so I can't check. My dictionary is in the basement.):

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/bigot

bigot noun disapproving
a person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs and who thinks that anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong

"a religious bigot"
"He was known to be a loud-mouthed, opinionated bigot."

bigoted adjective
"She's so bigoted that she refuses to accept anyone who doesn't think like her."
If someone has a strong unreasonable belief that Chaucer wrote the works attributed to Shakespeare and things anyone who disagrees is wrong, no one in America would call that person a bigot. BEcause there is no racial or religious or majority dislikes minorities component.
By the same token in the US, if someone disliked Black people only a little bit, he's still a bigot, a mild bigot but a bigot nonetheless. It's not about the strength of his beliefs anymore, but about the dislike or hatred in them.
I hate it when the meaning of a word changes, but the stuff in this post was all true 50+ years and I'm stuck with it.
Quotes from all existing free online English dictionaries were thrown around in the course of the discussion.

What does this mean?

That in order to e-mail me, you have to delete 'crazy' from the address. But leave 'div', which means 'crazy' or 'wild' in Bulgarian.

Aha!
(Actually, this is not exactly true - you can e-mail me by just hitting 'reply', but I won't see the e-mail, as I check that account about once every two months or so.)

Aha!

Posters should say where they live, and for which area they are asking questions. I was born and then lived in Western Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis 7 years
Chicago 6 years
Brooklyn, NY 12 years
Baltimore 26 years
He got distracted and didn't finish the sentence. ... the ones who pretencd to accept someone as acceptable or even as an equal, but who don't mean it.
Hypocrisy is stating a belief without truly believing it. For instance, a racist is a bigot, if he doesn't truly ... truly believes it, and has no doubts, he's not a bigot, just a fanatic. That's how I understand the term.

Although this thread started with what the candidate for British PM said, I can only answer you about American English. It might be the same. The PM candidate probably used it the same afaict.

WRT current American English, you are wrong.
Let me repeat what you said to help myself reply:
For instance, a racist is a bigot,

A racist is a bigot, no matter what, in the US for the last 50 years or more, except among other racists, who would think he's a fine guy. That is, if he hates the same people they do.
if he doesn't truly believe that his race is superior, but perseveres because of his hatred of the other races.

If he hates other races, he's a bigot. for the last 50 years at least, regardless of whether he truly believes his race is superior.
But if he truly believes it, and has no doubts, he's not a bigot, just a fanatic.

He's a bigot whether he has doubts or not.
If he really doesn't have racist views, yes he's a hypocrite. Is he a bigot? I have to think about that. People like this are very rare, so I haven't thought about it before. I can only think of one possible example of someone who wasn't totally racist afaik but who pretended to be.That would be George Wallace, governor of Alabama and presidential candidate. When he first ran for office, maybe for governor, he was a liberal, judging him by southern standards, which means even as a liberal, he wasn't in favor of getting rid of segregation. I'm not sure what it meant to be a liberal, maybe very little. But he didn't have very much in his platform or speeches that was racist. And he lost to an outspoken racist. And he resolved, in his own words iirc, "I will never be out-niggered again".

That is, he'd be as hard on niggers as his opponent was, (and probably harder). That led him to take a lead roll in the state and as a national candidate pushing policies that were directly and indirectly racist. Let's assume he wasn't racist at all, he didn't believe in this stuff at all, but he still did it. He's the only example I know of, and he had plenty enough sincere racism, to be a bigot. If you could find someone with none who acted like he was a racist, I don't know what all I'd call him.

But I doubt you can find one.
I don't think you understand the USA meaning of fanatic. A fanatic has to be energetic in pursuing his views. For example, it's not enough to sit at home and oppose some bill in Congress. It's not even enough to go to a demostration against it, to be a fanatic. A fanatic has dress up in unusual clothes to be sure he's noticed above the other demonstrators, to demostrate even when no one else is, or to bomb or set fire to something, maybe the place that would benefit from the bill if it becomes law. Maybe if he pays for a plane to pull a banner behind it expressing his views, he's a fanatic.

For example wrt cutting down redwood trees in California forests, a fanatic is someone who nails spikes into the trees so that the chain saw will hit the spike and bounce back, likely injuring the man using the saw.
Just believing in racist or antisemitic views doesn't make someone a fanatic. He has to be energetic (substantially?) beyond average in his actions related to his views.
That's how I understand the term.

Posters should say where they live, and for which area they are asking questions. I was born and then lived in Western Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis 7 years
Chicago 6 years
Brooklyn, NY 12 years
Baltimore 26 years
Oh, I don't think so. A person can be a ... to a cause. Bigots don't have causes. Just strong dislikes.

Why would that be something bad? Everybody is entitled to their dislikes. It becomes a negative quality, only if it is fanatical and hypocritical. At least that's how I see it.

A bigot need not be fanatical to use deprecating terms to describe people in the group he doesn't like. He need not be fanatical to not hire or want to work with someone in that group. There's nothing fanatical about expressing and believing stereotypical prejudices.

There's nothing bigoted about disliking an individual, but when innate dislike is focused on a group, or several groups, it is bigotry.
Again, I don't see bigots as hypocritical. Some are; the ... though, are openly bigoted and make no pretense about it.

You lost me here. Accept what?

People in the group or groups they are bigoted against.
Hypocrisy is stating a belief without truly believing it. For instance, a racist is a bigot, if he doesn't truly ... truly believes it, and has no doubts, he's not a bigot, just a fanatic. That's how I understand the term.

I don't quite see it that way. A hypocrite is a person who pretends to be accepting of those they are bigoted against, but doesn't accept them. Whether or not he feels he is truly superior is beside the point.
You'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone.

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Oh, I don't think so. A person can be a ... to a cause. Bigots don't have causes. Just strong dislikes.

Why would that be something bad? Everybody is entitled to their dislikes. It becomes a negative quality, only if it is fanatical and hypocritical. At least that's how I see it.

A bigot need not be fanatical to use deprecating terms to describe people in the group he doesn't like. He need not be fanatical to not hire or want to work with someone in that group. There's nothing fanatical about expressing and believing stereotypical prejudices.

There's nothing bigoted about disliking an individual, but when innate dislike is focused on a group, or several groups, it is bigotry.
Again, I don't see bigots as hypocritical. Some are; the ... though, are openly bigoted and make no pretense about it.

You lost me here. Accept what?

People in the group or groups they are bigoted against.
Hypocrisy is stating a belief without truly believing it. For instance, a racist is a bigot, if he doesn't truly ... truly believes it, and has no doubts, he's not a bigot, just a fanatic. That's how I understand the term.

I don't quite see it that way. A hypocrite is a person who pretends to be accepting of those they are bigoted against, but doesn't accept them. Whether or not he feels he is truly superior is beside the point.
You'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone.

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Then there's a difference in my understanding of English usage, and yours. You're more likely to be right - you're the native speaker, after all - but I still beg to differ.
if he doesn't truly believe that his race is superior, but perseveres because of his hatred of the other races.

If he hates other races, he's a bigot. for the last 50 years at least, regardless of whether he truly believes his race is superior.

No, a racist is a racist. Whether he's a bigot, or just a fanatic, or neither, depends on what exactly he believes. This makes logical sense, and if it is not the same as current usage, too bad. Emotion: smile
But if he truly believes it, and has no doubts, he's not a bigot, just a fanatic.

He's a bigot whether he has doubts or not. If he really doesn't have racist views, yes he's a hypocrite. ... totally racist afaik but who pretended to be. That would be George Wallace, governor of Alabama and presidential candidate. (snip)

That was a very interesting story, but is not my point. I wouldn't call Wallace a bigot - he was not truly racist (hateful) to begin with. My understanding of bigot is closer to the image of the Picts in the Kipling poem - who hate Rome just so, and secretly know inside themselves that they are inferior, which strengthens their hatred.
I don't think you understand the USA meaning of fanatic. A fanatic has to be energetic in pursuing his views. ... doesn't make someone a fanatic. He has to be energetic (substantially?) beyond average in his actions related to his views.

I see. That explanation was appreciated.

You'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone.
Whoever bans a book, shall be banished. Whoever burns a book, shall burn.
That was a very interesting story, but is not my point. I wouldn't call Wallace a bigot - he was ... poem - who hate Rome just so, and secretly know inside themselves that they are inferior, which strengthens their hatred.

I suspect you can't find a Bulgarian equivalent because you are misconstruing the word bigot. There may not be a single word but I doubt that the concept can't be expressed in words.
It is useful to bear in mind that being a bigot in public today in the UK or US is considered to be socially unacceptable. A racist can definitely be called a bigot, but bigotry may also be based on more than race. There was a time when George Wallace's bigotry was socially acceptable in some public arenas. Later, bigotry became socially unacceptable in just about any public space. What this means is that evidence of racism or bigotry is more difficult to come by nowadays in public speech. Since bigot is a more general and inclusive word you may see it used when there is littler evidence to base that judgment on and racist used when the evidence is more clear.
This is the essence of the problem Gordon Brown faced. The woman may well be bigoted. She had made some vague comment about Eastern European immigrants in reply to Mr. Brown's comments on controlling welfare spending, but that is not much evidence to go on. That lack of evidence is what makes his statement a political blunder. He is the one who appears to be prejudiced.
This is a sticky political issue. Is a concern about immigration always veiled bigotry or can it be just a concern about maintaining good social order?
This is the what the world has come to - money, goods and ideas are allowed to freely flow across international borders, but people are not. What exactly is that all about?
-jim
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.