3 ms·
That's an oversimplification: your aim is to understand why they hold the views they have - often they face very real problems themselves which are externalized
by icanhackit 11y ago
That's an oversimplification: your aim is to understand why they hold the views they have - often they face very real problems themselves which are externalized as hatred and violence. Solving the root causes, whether it's a lack of social mobility as a result of poor education, a lack of agency or control in a fast-changing world, you can begin to understand their plight and look for ways to treat the underlying illness. Usually the correct answer is: good cheap education (but that's also an oversimplification).
Brainwashing or banning forms of expression would be treating the symptoms rather than addressing the underlying cause. Brainwashing/censorship might be quicker and, in the short-term, cheaper than changing the culture and living conditions of a group of people, but you'll forever be addressing symptoms at great cost long-term.
- caskance 11y agoYou're still being condescending by assuming that their views are wrong and that they only believe those things because of something else that went wrong in their lives. That's not going to lead to a sincere conversation. That's what I mean by preaching.
- icanhackit 11y ago> You're still being condescending by assuming that their views are wrong If you posit a preexisting bias as condescension then you can throw nearly all forms of dialogue between two disparate groups in there. > That's what I mean by preaching Allowing someone to have a voice, even if you quite vocally disagree with them and have preconceived ideas that there's something wrong with them, is more material and consequential than suppression. Call it what you will. Channeling your earlier post... > If you are not willing to admit that they might be right This starts with dialogue, no matter what your feelings towards them are. The opposite is the death of debate.
- caskance 11y agoI'm not talking about mere bias. What you have is preexisting conviction. Preaching is not debate.
- icanhackit 11y ago> What you have is preexisting conviction. So we should give up discussion when either side has conviction?
- caskance 11y agoYou can't give up something you never had.
- icanhackit 11y agoThe basis of your position seems to be that if one or more parties has a sense of superior mindset then a real discussion can't take place. That is incorrect by definition.
- caskance 11y agoNope. It's pretty much guaranteed that each side thinks their own position is superior. Else why would they hold it? The problem is when a party is so certain in their superiority they are unwilling to acknowledge the possibility that they might be wrong. That guarantees an unproductive discussion. I'm beginning to think that this might be an example of such.
- icanhackit 11y agoThe problem is when a party is so certain in their superiority they are unwilling to acknowledge the possibility that they might be wrong. Which is a straw-man argument, as you're asserting something which might or might not happen in a hypothetical exchange based on my preconceived notions regarding a typically violent, intolerant group of people to be reality.
- caskance 11y agoStraw man nothing. You yourself said that they don't even really believe that, they are just lashing out because of other problems in their life.