44 ms·

I think that it's important to speak out against intolerance, but also to be careful about retreating into righteousness; the groundswell of support for Trump i

by JadeNB 10y ago

I think that it's important to speak out against intolerance, but also to be careful about retreating into righteousness; the groundswell of support for Trump is (probably, since I don't know any better than any of the countless other people who got this election totally wrong) precisely from people who feel that the direction of their country is leaving them behind. As we have seen, insisting that they are right, and that the worst of their attitudes should be left behind, doesn't silence them; it makes them feel forced into desperate action, willing to elect anyone who will (appear to) listen to and validate them.

sandworm101 10y ago
But the engagement approach has failed. It is time for something new. Another cycle of engagement and acquiescence may only exacerbate the problem. I;m not talking about changing views. I'm talking about making them aware of their views. They don't think they are racists. They don't think they are homophobic. Nobody has ever told them, they have never been confronted by someone they actually know and respect. Only once they understand that their views are describable in such terms can we ever then hope to change those views. It's a two-step process. We all assume that convincing someone that they are racist will cause them to change. That denies the reality that someone can be a proud racist, a proud homophobe. I've got a pile of emails coming in from elderly family members who are very very proud of their anti-muslim and anti-gay views. Many start along the lines of "It may be racist, but that's what we need to fix today's problems." At least they acknowledge the description.
- JadeNB 10y ago
  I don't understand this: > I;m not talking about changing views. I'm talking about making them aware of their views. They don't think they are racists. They don't think they are homophobic. … Only once they understand that their views are describable in such terms can we ever then hope to change those views. followed by this: > We all assume that convincing someone that they are racist will cause them to change. That denies the reality that someone can be a proud racist, a proud homophobe. I've got a pile of emails coming in from elderly family members who are very very proud of their anti-muslim and anti-gay views. The latter quote seems to be directly arguing against the point of view espoused in the former.
  - sandworm101 10y ago
    It's a two-step process. First you must make them understand that they are racist. That's requires confrontation. Once they acknowledge that truth, that reasonable people believe them racist, then you can go about convincing them that racism is a bad thing. The first statement is about people who do not believe themselves racist. The second about those who do and are proud of being so. You confront the former, negotiating only with the later.
- Agustus 10y ago
  How do you take into account nuances. When President Obama was riding shotgun on the ACA passage he disregarded the opinions of the opposition with phrases like "No one has shown me any other alternatives," and "I won." When the ACA was finally passed, the opposition pointed out the flaws that are now occurring. Where in this entire process, even from the start was there any engagement. I am actively asking what engagement programs or outreaches have been attempted. The only thing I can point to is the ever changing nature of our nation's acceptance of gays and lesbian marriage. Senator's Clinton and Obama both were against it until after the populace pointed out how much they were for it. A thought experiment: Minimum wage. It is a horrible program that directly hurts the poor and downtrodden; it was first imposed by actual racists to keep blacks out of work[1], [2]. Now, based on its origination, is it a racist program to keep poor and downtrodden out of work or is it a racist program to eliminate the minimum wage? Who is the arbiter of this decision? [1] "Colored labor is being sought to demoralize wage rates." American Federation of Labor President William Green [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis%E2%80%93Bacon_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis%E2%80%93Bacon_Act
- pjc50 10y ago
  I'm not convinced by this, partly because labelling people as racist is what we've been doing and failing. And as the other commentor says, your paragraphs are contradictory. I keep meaning to write a longer thing about this, but we're running into the politics of loyalty and belonging. That's how you get people taking pride in their racism; they've chosen who they have solidarity with, who they consider their ingroup, and if racism is part of that group deliniation they're going to shout it from the rooftops. (Given the way group identity works through churches in parts of America, the best approach might be to keep asking people who self-describe as Christian what they think of Trump's behaviour towards women..)

by JadeNB 10y ago

sandworm101 10y ago

But the engagement approach has failed. It is time for something new. Another cycle of engagement and acquiescence may only exacerbate the problem. I;m not talking about changing views. I'm talking about making them aware of their views. They don't think they are racists. They don't think they are homophobic. Nobody has ever told them, they have never been confronted by someone they actually know and respect. Only once they understand that their views are describable in such terms can we ever then hope to change those views. It's a two-step process. We all assume that convincing someone that they are racist will cause them to change. That denies the reality that someone can be a proud racist, a proud homophobe. I've got a pile of emails coming in from elderly family members who are very very proud of their anti-muslim and anti-gay views. Many start along the lines of "It may be racist, but that's what we need to fix today's problems." At least they acknowledge the description.

JadeNB 10y ago
I don't understand this: > I;m not talking about changing views. I'm talking about making them aware of their views. They don't think they are racists. They don't think they are homophobic. … Only once they understand that their views are describable in such terms can we ever then hope to change those views. followed by this: > We all assume that convincing someone that they are racist will cause them to change. That denies the reality that someone can be a proud racist, a proud homophobe. I've got a pile of emails coming in from elderly family members who are very very proud of their anti-muslim and anti-gay views. The latter quote seems to be directly arguing against the point of view espoused in the former.
- sandworm101 10y ago
  It's a two-step process. First you must make them understand that they are racist. That's requires confrontation. Once they acknowledge that truth, that reasonable people believe them racist, then you can go about convincing them that racism is a bad thing. The first statement is about people who do not believe themselves racist. The second about those who do and are proud of being so. You confront the former, negotiating only with the later.
Agustus 10y ago
How do you take into account nuances. When President Obama was riding shotgun on the ACA passage he disregarded the opinions of the opposition with phrases like "No one has shown me any other alternatives," and "I won." When the ACA was finally passed, the opposition pointed out the flaws that are now occurring. Where in this entire process, even from the start was there any engagement. I am actively asking what engagement programs or outreaches have been attempted. The only thing I can point to is the ever changing nature of our nation's acceptance of gays and lesbian marriage. Senator's Clinton and Obama both were against it until after the populace pointed out how much they were for it. A thought experiment: Minimum wage. It is a horrible program that directly hurts the poor and downtrodden; it was first imposed by actual racists to keep blacks out of work[1], [2]. Now, based on its origination, is it a racist program to keep poor and downtrodden out of work or is it a racist program to eliminate the minimum wage? Who is the arbiter of this decision? [1] "Colored labor is being sought to demoralize wage rates." American Federation of Labor President William Green [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis%E2%80%93Bacon_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis%E2%80%93Bacon_Act
pjc50 10y ago
I'm not convinced by this, partly because labelling people as racist is what we've been doing and failing. And as the other commentor says, your paragraphs are contradictory. I keep meaning to write a longer thing about this, but we're running into the politics of loyalty and belonging. That's how you get people taking pride in their racism; they've chosen who they have solidarity with, who they consider their ingroup, and if racism is part of that group deliniation they're going to shout it from the rooftops. (Given the way group identity works through churches in parts of America, the best approach might be to keep asking people who self-describe as Christian what they think of Trump's behaviour towards women..)