It sounds like your solution is to just retreat into a separate camps and hope that demographics finally does its thing?I agree that it will likely work. It is also why I ultimately think that the current alt-right is likely to be more of a dangerous last ditch effort then a prolonged dark time because demographics do tend that way even if conservative moral foundations seem to exist in all age groups.
Yet you point out time and time again the damage done by time. I think we can do more than just wait. I think we can actually change things faster But it will take the ability to have public discussions that might make some people uncomfortable. I think the chance of getting change occurring faster and with less resistance is worth the risk of offending someone.
It is never good to ask anyone to consider their inferiority but there is value in asking how we might rephrase things to actually change opinions, or how we might show respect for others values to get their open attention, and even perhaps how we can motivate them to want to change.As the NY Times pointed out, that sort of look at issues is also being shut down and I mourn the loss. I believe it makes the struggle for real change harder and leaves us to the slow change of demographics.
What I said is effectively, “the only way to change someone’s mind is not to try in the first place.” And it’s true.
I have been thinking this for a while. Nobody’s ever going to change their mind immediately on anything. Tell me, when was the last time you actually changed your mind on something you felt strongly about? What was that process like, how did it work? Really think through how it happened, and why.
For me, changing my mind is a process of hearing a lot of perspectives and data over time, and a slow shift to a tipping point. It’s never, ever been a case of “I read X and immediately realized how wrong I was!”
So perhaps this advice is quite apt: forget changing people’s minds, just tell your story. A great, heartfelt, honest story can work towards changing someone’s mind in much more powerful ways than … a literal attempt to get them to change their mind.
Of course per the first post none of this applies to “this data shows that black people have lower IQs, prove me wrong!”
Which is why, in my opinion, I think there is value in engaging. Even someone who others consider a troll. Because even if they don’t take in your position then, another person might.
Is that what I said? My comment has zero to do with the ban/ not ban angle. It is a parallel argument.
I agree that there is a line to draw, and it is before the line of active discrimination and slurs.
But I also think that, if not for the person you are replying to but at least for others are on the fence that may see it, there is value in loudly, perhaps forcefully, countering the arguments and positions. That ‘your position is wrong/ racist and here is why’ is more effective than ‘your position is racist, banned’.
Like I said, not always for that specific person. But for non participant observers. Otherwise it leaves their arguments, unchallenged.
Now certainly there is a line where ‘your position is racist and bad’ is the only reasonable reply. Clearly if someone stated that people of X race were inferior, it is the only appropriate response. But it is the more perfidious types, the less obvious to someone not familiar in the ways of the dog whistles and coded language, that requires more I think.
Now what you do with that person after? Completely separate. But pointing out those dog whistles, showing the problems with their arguments, it weakens them. Makes it harder for them to hide in the shadows.
Just because racists have better trained themselves to continue arguments while pressing the same views does not mean they are any less abhorrent. The entire point of this topic, at least based on what @wumpus started with as the initial post, is the racists are better with their arguments, but that doesn’t make it any less vile. For some reason, some people seem to think suddenly that’s worth debating because it costs them… nothing. People engaging racists who are not racist towards them will see no harm with it because why would there be? It’s not their group that pays the price for that. Failure has essentially no cost to a bunch of white guys on a stage, as shown above, or on a forum, who engage racists for days on end. The rest of us, there’s a cost. Yes there is. And let’s not forget, this engaging, tolerating, not stomping that racism down… is the failed policy that has brought us to today.
This does not follow even a little. A ban does not physically prevent read access unless your forum is login required to view all content in the first place.
There has to be a strong social stigma to holding these beliefs, ideally bans, otherwise everyone suffers in the long run. “Let’s take a minute to have a civil and substantive discussion about whether Jews are vermin” is corrosive to the human spirit and a disservice to the human condition.
Which is why I mourn the collateral damage in the loss of earnest discussion by people who hold basically the same view but I never said anything about the loss of the Devil’s Advocate type of argumentation. A gaming analogy feels both appropriate for the audience and risky because it isn’t a great analogy and is a little bit light for the subject matter. Still I can’t help but see a little bit of the LG paladin with strict behavior codes (such that their character sometimes verges into lawful stubborn) in the description of the current state of online discussion as outlined in the NY Times.
Not suprisingly, to me at least, I can read the same article and draw a different conclusion. You linked it as show in the quote below.
It’s not true in any but the most technical sense. They do have to change their own mind but the story describes how to get them to do it. The link (shown below) is not nearly as pessimistic as you are.
The concept of engagement, building some level of mutual respect, and finding ways to motivate them to change is the science education (perhaps mostly physics education) version of the same techniques mentioned in the link. Yes, you can change peoples minds it just takes effort.
Wumpus keeps talking about stories so I’ll share another one.
I generally do my charitable giving as planned giving once a year. But the 2017 hurricane season provoked a response and I donated to hurricane relief efforts in Houston. I did not donate to hurricane relief efforts in Puerto Rico or other islands. The donation I made was reasonable for my circumstances; it was not a matter of blowing all of my available money and not having any left.
I’ve lived in Houston. I have friends in.Houston. I’ve visited Puerto Rico but not for long. I’ve never been to the rest of the Caribbean. There was great need in Houston but ultimately Houston is in a better situation that Puerto Rico or the other islands due partially to some of the same structural racism issues that we agree are a problem. Ultimately I acted based on my emotions and my connection to the Houston community outweighed the issue of fairness (in the equality / fairness divide shown in the three boxes graphic).
Was this a racist act? Should I consider myself a racist? Note that while this can come across as asking for a blessing, for forgiveness, or for justification its not. The action is done and I know my viewpoint. I’d be interested in other viewpoints but its not really worth derailing things.
No you don’t, they can read all they like. And those kinds of tedious “discussions” can be had anywhere, I see no reason in particular they need to junk up our backyard.
So you don’t believe reading / listening has ever influenced anyone in any way? Only writing / talking?
I find with people that have a very superficial and/or simplistic understanding of a complex social issue, they can easily read any one of hundreds of other exchanges of exactly the same talking points they were going to trot out, in hundreds of places on the Internet. It is an identical experience.
In other words, you don’t fix a fundamental lack of listening by asserting that more talking must somehow be necessary.
