5 ms·

This is an infuriatingly unhelpful attitude. Presumably the goal is to encourage people who lack awareness about issues surrounding racism and sexism to both b

This is an infuriatingly unhelpful attitude. Presumably the goal is to encourage people who lack awareness about issues surrounding racism and sexism to both become aware and to actually care about these problems. And to change their behavior, to the extent that it should change. Unnecessarily attacking, humiliating, or embarrassing a person who is willfully admitting their own ignorance and seeking a better understanding of the situation is so obviously counterproductive that I can't believe I'm having to write this comment. This is not the way to win people to your side — in fact, it's completely the opposite. Doing so only causes both sides to become more firmly entrenched in their beliefs and less likely to try and discuss the issue further. By giving them a positive experience, you not only increase the likelihood of them seriously considering your arguments, but you also open the door for them to come back to the table for discussion again, even if you didn't win them over the first time around.

zepto 9y ago
Right - clearly it is the job of women and PoC to give positive experiences to white men otherwise they cannot expect to be treated well. It is also clearly not the responsibility of white men to give positive experiences to PoC and women, because they can't be expected to understand how if they aren't first given positive experiences by PoC and women.
- FT_intern 9y ago
  Attacking someone for ignorance is very unproductive
  - zepto 9y ago
    So why do white men do it to women and PoC, or is your claim that ignorance only exists on one side of this? You imply that while men can do nothing for themselves unless given positive experiences by women an PoC. This is obviously false, since there are plenty of white men who have a good understanding of these issues. Stop blaming women and PoC for your own ignorance and go and learn something from people who have figured this stuff out.
    - stouset 9y ago
      I can think of virtually no better example to prove my point than the contents of this exchange. So thank you for helping me to demonstrate to everyone else in this thread that speaking from anger, constructing and attacking the flimsiest of straw men, and repeatedly misconstruing a sympathetic counterparty's points only serves to push away the people you might hope to see your point of view. I genuinely hope it was satisfying for you, because that's about the only positive outcome that's likely to arise for you out of this.
      - zepto 9y ago
        Try reading what I am saying without projecting anger into it. Just because it's not to your liking doesn't mean it's angry. Also - there is nothing you have said that indicates you are a sympathetic counterparty. How do you expect us to know that? Therein lies the problem.
- stouset 9y ago
  It's not a duty or responsibility. And it's not unproductive as a sibling commenter suggests. It's straight up counterproductive and a form of self-sabotage. If your goal is to feel self-righteous and superior, by all means attack those who are showing genuine interest in coming over to your side. If your goal is to actually bring about a positive change in society, perhaps it's worthwhile to consider a different approach.
  - zepto 9y ago
    This is based on an almost ludicrously simplistic straw man: you conjure up the idea of someone who is "showing genuine interest in coming over you your side" How are they 'showing' this exactly? What makes it 'genuine' that they want to come over to another side? Why are they on a 'side' in the first place, and what makes you think that the goal is to have them change 'sides'? Are you saying they are not already on 'our side'? What does that imply? How can you distinguish their arguments from those of people who simply want to argue their position and remain ignorant?
didgeoridoo 9y ago
> Presumably the goal is to encourage people who lack awareness about issues surrounding racism and sexism to both become aware and to actually care about these problems. And to change their behavior, to the extent that it should change. For some, this is the goal. Unfortunately, they tend to be drowned out by those who find the experience of loudly attacking and embarrassing "privileged" folk to be cathartic and uplifting — a goal unto itself. Evergreen College professor Bret Weinstein made a great point on a podcast earlier this week: "You have the real equity movement which are people who wish to end oppression, and then you have another movement that wishes to reverse oppression. And they don't know that they are different, because until you reach equity, they're pointing in the same direction."
- Mz 9y ago
  "You have the real equity movement which are people who wish to end oppression, and then you have another movement that wishes to reverse oppression. And they don't know that they are different, because until you reach equity, they're pointing in the same direction." I think the difference is pretty readily discernible. I don't think they point in the same direction at all. The difference is between "Can you help me up off the pavement and help me dust myself off, given that you are standing above me and have strength I lack?" and "Hey, lay down on the pavement so I can shit all over you because someone who looks kind of like you shit all over me and it's my turn. That's only fair."
jolux 9y ago
I'm not actually saying we should attack people for being ignorant, I'm saying that if a white guy gets offended while trying to learn that it's less of a problem than the actual object of our activism. Frankly if I have to argue with this person and tiptoe around their fragile ego in discussing these things I'm not sure we want them in the first place. Allyship is complex and defined finally by those you are allied with.
- stouset 9y ago
  > ...if a white guy gets offended while trying to learn that it's less of a problem than the actual object of our activism. Nobody is arguing this. Here's the thing though: it doesn't matter if one problem is worse than the other, at least as to the point people are trying to make in this thread. When activists are openly hostile or otherwise inflammatory to people who are sympathetic to but not yet behind the activists' cause, they undermine that cause by pushing away and alienating the very people who are signaling that they're on the cusp of changing their perspective. Those people who held out an olive branch only to have it knocked aside are less likely to become allies in the future. > Frankly if I have to argue with this person and tiptoe around their fragile ego in discussing these things I'm not sure we want them in the first place. I'm sorry, but this is phenomenally short-sighted. This is how the human psyche works. Virtually any person who's been converted to your cause started from a position of disagreement, went through a transition period where they started to question longstanding beliefs and assumptions, learned to empathize with people who were harmed by the status quo, and eventually discarded or significantly amended those original beliefs. You will be hard-pressed to find a psychologist who will suggest that ridiculing or attacking a person in that transition period will do anything but turn them away and calcify their original position.
  - gizmo 9y ago
    > they undermine that cause by pushing away and alienating the very people who are signaling that they're on the cusp of changing their perspective You have repeatedly made this assertion, but you have made no effort to substantiate it. Why do you think you're in a better position to judge what works and what doesn't than the activists who deal with this stuff every day? Being hostile towards people who are ignorant and react indignantly when their ignorance is pointed out is a strategy, and one that seems to work. Sure, some people don't take criticism well and you lose them. But some people _will_ listen, improve their behavior, and will eventually become worthwhile allies.

zepto 9y ago

Right - clearly it is the job of women and PoC to give positive experiences to white men otherwise they cannot expect to be treated well. It is also clearly not the responsibility of white men to give positive experiences to PoC and women, because they can't be expected to understand how if they aren't first given positive experiences by PoC and women.

FT_intern 9y ago
Attacking someone for ignorance is very unproductive
- zepto 9y ago
  So why do white men do it to women and PoC, or is your claim that ignorance only exists on one side of this? You imply that while men can do nothing for themselves unless given positive experiences by women an PoC. This is obviously false, since there are plenty of white men who have a good understanding of these issues. Stop blaming women and PoC for your own ignorance and go and learn something from people who have figured this stuff out.
  - stouset 9y ago
    I can think of virtually no better example to prove my point than the contents of this exchange. So thank you for helping me to demonstrate to everyone else in this thread that speaking from anger, constructing and attacking the flimsiest of straw men, and repeatedly misconstruing a sympathetic counterparty's points only serves to push away the people you might hope to see your point of view. I genuinely hope it was satisfying for you, because that's about the only positive outcome that's likely to arise for you out of this.
    - zepto 9y ago
      Try reading what I am saying without projecting anger into it. Just because it's not to your liking doesn't mean it's angry. Also - there is nothing you have said that indicates you are a sympathetic counterparty. How do you expect us to know that? Therein lies the problem.
stouset 9y ago
It's not a duty or responsibility. And it's not unproductive as a sibling commenter suggests. It's straight up counterproductive and a form of self-sabotage. If your goal is to feel self-righteous and superior, by all means attack those who are showing genuine interest in coming over to your side. If your goal is to actually bring about a positive change in society, perhaps it's worthwhile to consider a different approach.
- zepto 9y ago
  This is based on an almost ludicrously simplistic straw man: you conjure up the idea of someone who is "showing genuine interest in coming over you your side" How are they 'showing' this exactly? What makes it 'genuine' that they want to come over to another side? Why are they on a 'side' in the first place, and what makes you think that the goal is to have them change 'sides'? Are you saying they are not already on 'our side'? What does that imply? How can you distinguish their arguments from those of people who simply want to argue their position and remain ignorant?

didgeoridoo 9y ago

> Presumably the goal is to encourage people who lack awareness about issues surrounding racism and sexism to both become aware and to actually care about these problems. And to change their behavior, to the extent that it should change. For some, this is the goal. Unfortunately, they tend to be drowned out by those who find the experience of loudly attacking and embarrassing "privileged" folk to be cathartic and uplifting — a goal unto itself. Evergreen College professor Bret Weinstein made a great point on a podcast earlier this week: "You have the real equity movement which are people who wish to end oppression, and then you have another movement that wishes to reverse oppression. And they don't know that they are different, because until you reach equity, they're pointing in the same direction."

Mz 9y ago
"You have the real equity movement which are people who wish to end oppression, and then you have another movement that wishes to reverse oppression. And they don't know that they are different, because until you reach equity, they're pointing in the same direction." I think the difference is pretty readily discernible. I don't think they point in the same direction at all. The difference is between "Can you help me up off the pavement and help me dust myself off, given that you are standing above me and have strength I lack?" and "Hey, lay down on the pavement so I can shit all over you because someone who looks kind of like you shit all over me and it's my turn. That's only fair."

jolux 9y ago

I'm not actually saying we should attack people for being ignorant, I'm saying that if a white guy gets offended while trying to learn that it's less of a problem than the actual object of our activism. Frankly if I have to argue with this person and tiptoe around their fragile ego in discussing these things I'm not sure we want them in the first place. Allyship is complex and defined finally by those you are allied with.

stouset 9y ago
> ...if a white guy gets offended while trying to learn that it's less of a problem than the actual object of our activism. Nobody is arguing this. Here's the thing though: it doesn't matter if one problem is worse than the other, at least as to the point people are trying to make in this thread. When activists are openly hostile or otherwise inflammatory to people who are sympathetic to but not yet behind the activists' cause, they undermine that cause by pushing away and alienating the very people who are signaling that they're on the cusp of changing their perspective. Those people who held out an olive branch only to have it knocked aside are less likely to become allies in the future. > Frankly if I have to argue with this person and tiptoe around their fragile ego in discussing these things I'm not sure we want them in the first place. I'm sorry, but this is phenomenally short-sighted. This is how the human psyche works. Virtually any person who's been converted to your cause started from a position of disagreement, went through a transition period where they started to question longstanding beliefs and assumptions, learned to empathize with people who were harmed by the status quo, and eventually discarded or significantly amended those original beliefs. You will be hard-pressed to find a psychologist who will suggest that ridiculing or attacking a person in that transition period will do anything but turn them away and calcify their original position.
- gizmo 9y ago
  > they undermine that cause by pushing away and alienating the very people who are signaling that they're on the cusp of changing their perspective You have repeatedly made this assertion, but you have made no effort to substantiate it. Why do you think you're in a better position to judge what works and what doesn't than the activists who deal with this stuff every day? Being hostile towards people who are ignorant and react indignantly when their ignorance is pointed out is a strategy, and one that seems to work. Sure, some people don't take criticism well and you lose them. But some people _will_ listen, improve their behavior, and will eventually become worthwhile allies.