I recognize your position and I think its valid.
I would make the observation that the thing to resist here is normalization, since people who don’t care about politics pick their choices from the zeitgeist then it is important to make sure that reasonable ideas are openly discussed.
Yes, people who are ideologically invested in a stupid idea are likely to be threatened by rational discussion of that idea and this is where we may get into a discussion about what actually constitutes berating someone and yelling facts at them, but I do think that there’s a point where feeling yelled at and further retreating into a stupid idea is not really a natural reaction to being attacked, but a tactic to ignore whatever challenges a person’s preconceived notions.
So I would make a distinction between yelling facts at people and openly discussing ideas in public, some people will feel threatened by both, but you can’t protect a person’s feelings if they insist on using them as a shield.
But that’s exactly how we got into this situation: careful work over decades to train the populace to overly care about certain topics they didn’t care about before, and ignore and/or misinform on topics they really should care about.
I really don’t want to be a widow… 
It’s a Shakespeare quote. In context, it’s understood to mean “kill all the unethical lawyers”.
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/17/nyregion/l-kill-the-lawyers-a-line-misinterpreted-599990.html
I thought you were meant to disagree with the line, because it was spoken by a rebel.
I should not come here when I have a head cold… context goes right over my head.
/me crawls back into bad
Ah, yes, you’ve put it the right way: it’s about when someone unethical tells you to get rid of the people who are ethical (because their ethics are getting in the way).
Yeah, the idea is that lawyers are the guardians of law and order, so killing them spreads chaos and makes tyranny easy. That’s why I quoted it here in response to that quotation from a Trump supporter about the need to “drain the swamp of judges”. It’s precisely the same statement, for precisely the same reason, made by a real, live, contemporary person, instead of a Shakespearean villain in 16th century England.
V for Vendetta says it best again
To the people who are regretting voting for Trump. We need you to start resisting now, not after we are gone.
Abso-damn-lutely.
However, my preferred tactic when dealing with extremism is not to attack the ideology (which is indeed the base reason for it), but the extremists tactics. It is to emotionally separate the the numerous (who may have some sympathy for the base motivations of the extremists) from the extremists themselves by focusing on the tactics (which nobody but the extremists can countenance).
By focusing on the differences from the extremists rather than their similarities, you provide the sympathizers (who nonetheless find the tactics repugnant) with sufficient room to disengage.
Are they going to loudly denounce the extremists? Almost certainly not. But the best possible outcome is that extremist movements die with a whimper, not a bang.
(And this applies to extremists and sympathizers of all stripes.)
Agreed, which is why this is all a balancing act. Attacking the sin and not the sinner has always been tricky. But I do think there is a emotional difference to the voters between hearing “Trump’s actions are wrong” (which a number of Trump voters beginning to believe) and and “You are responsible for Trump’s wrong actions” (which is true, but is going to trigger their defensive support for him).
My base rule is “always to make it as cheap as possible for the opposition to cede the field to you”.
Here’s a joke for Mr. Pants:
A doctor, a priest, and a lawyer are in a boat surrounded by sharks. There’s a nearby shore but only the lawyer is able to go in the water and pull the boat. When they reach the shore the priest and doctor ask, “Why didn’t the sharks harm you?” The lawyer says, “Professional courtesy.”
And now the punchline: sharks are scary but what would the ocean be without 'em?
But it’s just wrong. Are we to ignore other forms of bigotry? Is it okay to be antisemitic, sexist, and racist, too? These are dangerous world views that will eventually lead down the road to violence, because they are violent ideologies. [quote=“tlwest, post:278, topic:95529”]
you provide the sympathizers (who nonetheless find the tactics repugnant) with sufficient room to disengage.
[/quote]
If people can’t see that “let’s kill all the ________” is a bad world view, and to be willing to forgive it, how is that something we can productively engage with? At what point does the acceptance of dehumanization end?
Agree. I am still talking to people to spread awareness, but still think there is the visceral emotion of hate he tapped into that is the real driving force.
I remember when W was president and people didn’t get what was appealing about him - all his malapropisms and such - but, he, too had this ability to connect emotionally with a certain type of voter.
Let me give you my personal experience. In my workplace, there are a lot of new Canadians (maybe 80-90%) and, no surprise, a significant number of them are vastly more socially conservative than the typical native born that I interact with (urban liberal).
When I hear homophobic or anti-semitic comments that I haven’t heard since the 1980’s, sure, I could attack their religion (which is core to their identity). But would that likely make them sympathetic?
No.
Instead, I go after the tactics. People want to be “Canadian”, but not give up their core beliefs. So instead, you subtly point out how it’s not very Canadian to voice those beliefs. And oddly enough, they don’t want to be “un-Canadian”.
And all is said with a little concern, and no condemnation (it’s more a little bit of advice about Canadian workplace norms).
And no surprise, there’s a lot less of it in the lunch-room.
I don’t attack their homophobia or their racism. I just try to (subtly) make them embarrassed to act on it.
Will it change their mind? Probably not. (Well, the subconscious desire to avoid low-status behaviour does erode those noxious beliefs a little.) But it makes it much harder to pass it on to the kids. And it means the workplace is not nearly as hostile.
(Let me make it clear that despite the occasional noxious sentiment, I never saw it influence personal actions. The whole “no, the people I know are fine, it’s the group I can’t stand” is still bizarre to me, but rules a lot of human behaviour.)
Anyway, I try to use roughly the same tactics I saw used on racism around here. 30 years ago, were you considered evil for being racist? Not really. But you were considered declasse. Which shut up a lot of the open racism and made it much harder to transmit the virus to their children. (After all, who wants their children to be social outcasts?)
Change takes place over decades.
So, I will condemn the open expressions of racism, sexism, etc., but when dealing with low-engagement racists, sexists, etc., I think the long game is much more likely to be successful. (And yes, the ‘low-engagement’ part is key. High-engagement has to be addressed directly and forcefully.)
(And yes, I am aware of the suffering that not fighting intolerance tooth and nail occurs right now. Every policy I choose has victims. But as perhaps 1% of the world shares my liberal beliefs, in a diverse, democratic world, I lose as soon as battle-lines exist. I’ve got to win without the other side ever being aware I am fighting a war.)
I appreciate your sharing, but I’m not sure what the point is. you’re right that laws might not necessarily change minds, but it’s hardly the point. It’s to allow all of us to live in peace and get on with life. If unjust laws are allowed to stand, which restrict the rights of certain individuals in order for some to feel comfortable (men to feel comfortable to harass women or whites to harass blacks or antisemites to bar jews from public life), how is that a society which is free and open. It’s by definition not a free or democratic society. It’s an unfree society meant to oppress some people.
Additionally, I think that saying to someone “those words you just said, they are hurtful, either to me or to some group of people” is not infringing on the rights of others. It’s letting them know they are being hurtful. It seems like it’s helpful to explain why you might feel that, of course.
Which is what I’m advocating for here. No… calling someone an n-word is not acceptable, nor is acceptable to make a woman feel uncomfortable for just doing her job. It’s also unacceptable to deny others their right to worship and to exist without an endless stream of harassment and intimidation. given what you just said, I suspect that you’d agree with all that. [quote=“tlwest, post:283, topic:95529”]
Every policy I choose has victims.
[/quote]
Is that true? Who was victimized by the passage of civil rights legislation? Who is victimized by laws prohibited rape or child molestation or murder? Is it really so onerous to ask to be able to live one’s life without interference by others? If people feel victimized by such laws, I don’t think it’s something I’m losing sleep over, frankly. If that makes me as bad as the people who feel victimized by these laws, then so be it. I suspect it doesn’t, though.
Sorry, obviously my entire point has not been made clearly. My series of posts has been about how to we deal with the voters, not the laws. Bad laws have to be opposed. But we have a lot of choice on how we deal with the voters.
Completely agreed. I’m not disputing one’s right to attack such remarks and the people who made them. I’m disputing whether a direct attack is the best long-term strategy. (Although, yes, appearing hurt, rather than angry can be a very effective tactic against low-engagement bigotry.)
Well, people who are unjustly accused and imprisoned for these crimes, for one. Of course, that’s a bit “reductio ad absurdum”, and in cases like this it’s pretty obvious the gains vastly outweigh the price. But there is a price, and it’s never wise to forget that.
My very existence interferes with others. I consider the good (to me and others) of my existence to outweigh the cost of my existence to others, but absolutely I have been interfering with other people’s lives (without their permission) for both good and ill since the moment I was born.
Just what constitutes unjust interference has been a fundamental cultural concern since the beginning of mankind.
And I have to add, I fundamentally do interfere with people’s basic rights. For example, free movement. I interfere with their right to move where they want, even if I don’t own the land. i.e. I don’t support open borders (high immigration, yes, but open borders, no, because fundamentally I’m selfish.) I interfere with their ability to use land they own (zoning). I interfere with the right to two people to choose negotiate a job (minimum wage).
So, no, I believe society is the set of choice of what sort and how much interference we have in each other’s affairs, because by our existence, we’re going to be interfering a whole lot.
Ah! Thanks for the clarity. I appreciate it! 
I think it depends on the nature of the attack. Obviously personal attacks are not helpful, mostly. But pointing out racism, sexism, homophobia, etc, in ideas might. Sure… lots of people will double down, but if they hear it enough, from enough people, the idea that they are acting bigoted and actively causing harm in the world might get through.
Of course, but that’s I think a bit different from what you meant? Is prohobiting rape and murder really infringing upon the rights of rapists and murderers?[quote=“tlwest, post:285, topic:95529”]
My very existence interferes with others.
[/quote]
Why would you think that? Unless you spend your days actively interfering with others, which I assume you don’t?
I guess that depends on how you define rights or what you define as rights? Are you, personally stopping people from getting an education or voting or having access to health care? I assume you’re not… But then again, not everyone agrees with what a human right is - some don’t see marriage and procreation as a human right and seek to pass laws that infringe on that right of others.
We pass laws that prohibit behavior that we imagine transgresses our collective morality- which of course is a moving target. I don’t think that’s a bad thing, as long as we can keep moving into freer territory. Sometimes limiting others “freedom” is a net positive for society.
This is a complicated set of ideas, isn’t it? No easy answers here. But it’s certainly worth hashing out, if you ask me!
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
