5 ms·

I don't think treating it as a moral issue is a useful way to fix the problem. If anyone wants to demonstrate some evidence that it works, I'll change my mind.

I don't think treating it as a moral issue is a useful way to fix the problem. If anyone wants to demonstrate some evidence that it works, I'll change my mind. All I've seen is a coarsening of discourse and a lot of finger-wagging to little effect.

Nevermark 10y ago
Both points are right. Its a moral issue that needs to be fixed. Moralizing at racists is not effective. They are already in an us-vs-them mindset, so an attack on their character just amps up those instincts. (When have attacks on character ever been an effective means of persuasion?)
- oldmanjay 10y ago
  I don't think it's a moral issue any more than our natural urge to defecate without using toilets is a moral issue. It has impacts on other things that are moral issues, but there's very little sense I can see in treating people's thoughts and feelings as evil.
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    I would argue that people largely act consistently with how they think. If the actions are immoral, there are thoughts that they come out of. (You also could be arguing that nothing is evil, because everything is the product of evolution, and morals do not exist. If that's your position, then I think it's mistaken, but I recognize that I am not answering it with this post.)
    - oldmanjay 10y ago
      I'll agree that morals exist, but they exist largely as things we indoctrinate children to believe without question. I'm not saying that it's a bad thing (or a good thing). I'm saying it's not a useful method to change an adult's behavior.
      - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
        > I'm saying it's not a useful method to change an adult's behavior. I disagree. I think the only thing that really changes adult behavior is showing them that their behavior violates moral standards that they agree with. (Well, or that it's financially better for them to change...)
        oldmanjay 10y ago
        Or if you can get them laid. Or a whole hell of a lot of other incentives. Humans are suckers for bullshit incentives. Just see how thoroughly the notion of "achievements" has taken over gaming for one instance.
- dismantlethesun 10y ago
  Moralizing is fairly effective if someone already classifies you as part of the in-group. That's how social stigma works, and generally how racism was broken in the US. With the advent of TV, many people could see the effects of racism first-hand and could no longer justify it to themselves. Their disapproval was fairly effective at getting the more hardline members of their community to moderate their actions. In Virginia for example, traveling Klan members found themselves suddenly unwelcome in small towns, since either (a) cyncially no small town wanted to be the next one on the news as a lynching ground, or (b) small towners were legitimately disgusted by the seeing children beaten up for no other reason than their skin colour.

Nevermark 10y ago

Both points are right. Its a moral issue that needs to be fixed. Moralizing at racists is not effective. They are already in an us-vs-them mindset, so an attack on their character just amps up those instincts. (When have attacks on character ever been an effective means of persuasion?)

oldmanjay 10y ago
I don't think it's a moral issue any more than our natural urge to defecate without using toilets is a moral issue. It has impacts on other things that are moral issues, but there's very little sense I can see in treating people's thoughts and feelings as evil.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  I would argue that people largely act consistently with how they think. If the actions are immoral, there are thoughts that they come out of. (You also could be arguing that nothing is evil, because everything is the product of evolution, and morals do not exist. If that's your position, then I think it's mistaken, but I recognize that I am not answering it with this post.)
  - oldmanjay 10y ago
    I'll agree that morals exist, but they exist largely as things we indoctrinate children to believe without question. I'm not saying that it's a bad thing (or a good thing). I'm saying it's not a useful method to change an adult's behavior.
    - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
      > I'm saying it's not a useful method to change an adult's behavior. I disagree. I think the only thing that really changes adult behavior is showing them that their behavior violates moral standards that they agree with. (Well, or that it's financially better for them to change...)
      - oldmanjay 10y ago
        Or if you can get them laid. Or a whole hell of a lot of other incentives. Humans are suckers for bullshit incentives. Just see how thoroughly the notion of "achievements" has taken over gaming for one instance.
dismantlethesun 10y ago
Moralizing is fairly effective if someone already classifies you as part of the in-group. That's how social stigma works, and generally how racism was broken in the US. With the advent of TV, many people could see the effects of racism first-hand and could no longer justify it to themselves. Their disapproval was fairly effective at getting the more hardline members of their community to moderate their actions. In Virginia for example, traveling Klan members found themselves suddenly unwelcome in small towns, since either (a) cyncially no small town wanted to be the next one on the news as a lynching ground, or (b) small towners were legitimately disgusted by the seeing children beaten up for no other reason than their skin colour.