5 ms·

> Through many talks with devoted and diverse people there — people who chose to invite me into their dorms and conversations rather than ostracize me — I began

> Through many talks with devoted and diverse people there — people who chose to invite me into their dorms and conversations rather than ostracize me — I began to realize the damage I had done. > That kind of persuasion happens in person-to-person interactions and it requires a lot of honest listening on both sides. For me, the conversations that led me to change my views started because I couldn’t understand why anyone would fear me. I thought I was only doing what was right and defending those I loved. These two quotes kinda resonate with me. I'm no longer on a college campus and can only take an impression from afar. But it seems like these two scenarios are more and more infrequent. It seems like now you must show that you have not been "tainted" by listening to someone with "reprehensible" opinions. This article states that people who didn't convulse at the mere thought of him, but sat down and talked to him are the reason why he drifted from his ideology. Now, it seems like you could be ostracized yourself for even visiting this person in their dorm room.

norea-armozel 10y ago
I think you're drawing too much from the author's experiences when it comes to changing people's minds. Engagement rarely, if ever, changes the opinions of people because people debate to hear how they're right and not how they're wrong. For years I've engaged my parents on the issue of my desire to transition (being that I'm transgender). And every time they respond with a cold shoulder or some mild rebuke. This has been the norm for sixteen years and they're not changing. So why should I engage them or anyone else like them?
- hga 10y ago
  Forgive me if I'm getting too personal, but are you looking for tolerance or acceptance? Because "live and let live" is an old and honored American tradition, and taking this out of the domain of the family, not being able to refuse to bake a gay wedding cake is the antithesis of that tradition. They're not directly comparable, because it's your parents, then again, you hardly have to go so far as to desire to transition to be given the cold shoulder or anything but a mild rebuke over something else that differs that's fundamental in your nature and that's different between you and your parents (in my case it pertained to simply going to college).
  - norea-armozel 10y ago
    "Because "live and let live" is an old and honored American tradition, and taking this out of the domain of the family, not being able to refuse to bake a gay wedding cake is the antithesis of that tradition." The problem with that argument is that it means I can force Christians seeking employment to urinate on the Bible as a condition of that employment. So, the law as it stands prevents me from forcing Christians to denigrate themselves for a quick buck. Similarly, I can't deny Christians access to my services as a programmer. So why should a Christian baker be able to deny their services in kind? Do you see the problem here? Basically, it would lead to an economic apartheid where the evangelical majority in the South can deny services to those who aren't them. These aren't just bakers either but medical doctors, EMTs, and police officers. Can you imagine a gay person dying from kidney cancer being told by the oncologist they're not going to treat them for their cancer until they repent? This has happened in the United States during the AIDS scare of the 80s. Hospices, hospitals, and individual medical staff refused to treat AIDS patients. Is that the kind of "tolerance" you want? Or do you want the law to say "keep your faith at home." Because even when I was an evangelical years ago I knew that the law was for my benefit too. If you think that a complex society like ours can live that way I'm just done with this conversation. "They're not directly comparable, because it's your parents, then again, you hardly have to go so far as to desire to transition to be given the cold shoulder or anything but a mild rebuke over something else that differs that's fundamental in your nature and that's different between you and your parents (in my case it pertained to simply going to college)." In college, you're not obliged to a conversation with your fellow students. If they're there to learn and it's not part of the credit requirement to debate you on a topic in the course then how about you take a hint and leave that person alone. I know that's mean of me but being that I went to college and grad school I found there was little time for chitchat and whenever there was any it wasn't about my gender identity. So, I guess I see college as something I didn't worry about challenging anything because my interest was getting a degree to get a good job and not to play faux activist. Because honestly, there's little virtue in trying to convince "the other side" of anything. I'd rather they just get their collective heads out of their butts and realize my humanity isn't conditional. If it's too hard for them to see me as human then well they're gonna have a bad time talking to me (as I might likely mock their dear Lord and Savior).

norea-armozel 10y ago

I think you're drawing too much from the author's experiences when it comes to changing people's minds. Engagement rarely, if ever, changes the opinions of people because people debate to hear how they're right and not how they're wrong. For years I've engaged my parents on the issue of my desire to transition (being that I'm transgender). And every time they respond with a cold shoulder or some mild rebuke. This has been the norm for sixteen years and they're not changing. So why should I engage them or anyone else like them?

hga 10y ago
Forgive me if I'm getting too personal, but are you looking for tolerance or acceptance? Because "live and let live" is an old and honored American tradition, and taking this out of the domain of the family, not being able to refuse to bake a gay wedding cake is the antithesis of that tradition. They're not directly comparable, because it's your parents, then again, you hardly have to go so far as to desire to transition to be given the cold shoulder or anything but a mild rebuke over something else that differs that's fundamental in your nature and that's different between you and your parents (in my case it pertained to simply going to college).
- norea-armozel 10y ago
  "Because "live and let live" is an old and honored American tradition, and taking this out of the domain of the family, not being able to refuse to bake a gay wedding cake is the antithesis of that tradition." The problem with that argument is that it means I can force Christians seeking employment to urinate on the Bible as a condition of that employment. So, the law as it stands prevents me from forcing Christians to denigrate themselves for a quick buck. Similarly, I can't deny Christians access to my services as a programmer. So why should a Christian baker be able to deny their services in kind? Do you see the problem here? Basically, it would lead to an economic apartheid where the evangelical majority in the South can deny services to those who aren't them. These aren't just bakers either but medical doctors, EMTs, and police officers. Can you imagine a gay person dying from kidney cancer being told by the oncologist they're not going to treat them for their cancer until they repent? This has happened in the United States during the AIDS scare of the 80s. Hospices, hospitals, and individual medical staff refused to treat AIDS patients. Is that the kind of "tolerance" you want? Or do you want the law to say "keep your faith at home." Because even when I was an evangelical years ago I knew that the law was for my benefit too. If you think that a complex society like ours can live that way I'm just done with this conversation. "They're not directly comparable, because it's your parents, then again, you hardly have to go so far as to desire to transition to be given the cold shoulder or anything but a mild rebuke over something else that differs that's fundamental in your nature and that's different between you and your parents (in my case it pertained to simply going to college)." In college, you're not obliged to a conversation with your fellow students. If they're there to learn and it's not part of the credit requirement to debate you on a topic in the course then how about you take a hint and leave that person alone. I know that's mean of me but being that I went to college and grad school I found there was little time for chitchat and whenever there was any it wasn't about my gender identity. So, I guess I see college as something I didn't worry about challenging anything because my interest was getting a degree to get a good job and not to play faux activist. Because honestly, there's little virtue in trying to convince "the other side" of anything. I'd rather they just get their collective heads out of their butts and realize my humanity isn't conditional. If it's too hard for them to see me as human then well they're gonna have a bad time talking to me (as I might likely mock their dear Lord and Savior).