4 ms·

It's definitely good to talk to people like this, but it needs to be carrot and stick: their organisations need to be ostracised and labelled as the hateful, ra

It's definitely good to talk to people like this, but it needs to be carrot and stick: their organisations need to be ostracised and labelled as the hateful, racist hellholes that they are, while people of any background still treat each other with respect in their communities. The biggest risk with bringing the members of these organisations in out of the cold is that this might normalise the organisations and ideologies without actually destroying anything. E.g. like having a POTUS who equivocates over their behaviour.

implabknowho 9y ago
you are absolutely correct. if we don’t constantly publicly shame these people from all channels at all times, how else will they know they’re so wrong that signaling their wrongness is the most important function society serves?
gallerdude 9y ago
I disagree. We get nowhere by making fun of other people or taking the moral high-ground. Progress comes by having real conversations with others, no matter how much we disagree with what they have to say. It's easy and fun to call someone racist and walk away, but the right thing to do is having them explain how they feel and just talking to them about it. I also don't understand how normalization is an issue? We get nowhere by censoring the our least favorite ideas in society. We get somewhere by bringing them out, and talking about why we disagree with the points made, in a respectful manner. Relevant article from The Onion: http://www.theonion.com/article/former-conservative-recalls-belittling-tirade-coll-56825 http://www.theonion.com/article/former-conservative-recalls-...
- justin66 9y ago
  > We get somewhere by bringing them out, and talking about why we disagree with the points made, in a respectful manner. It's not as if Neo-Nazis are "making points."
- HillaryBriss 9y ago
  an additional argument for protecting free speech for extremist ideas: the rest of society has a better sense of who these people are, what they're doing, what they're thinking, where they're going. the rest of society has more information about the extremists than it would if they were always suppressed.
xupybd 9y ago
I don't think this is true. You can disagree with a person without having to make every effort to signal they are evil. If you do this it just becomes group a vs group b. We like to form groups and defend our own instinctually. But our societies have grown in a way that means these instincts no longer help us but hinder us. Only when you find a way past that can you actually reason with a person.
- twobyfour 9y ago
  Perhaps we shouldn't be signaling that a person is evil, but it's damn well in unbent upon us all to trumpet the fact that their beliefs are evil.

implabknowho 9y ago

you are absolutely correct. if we don’t constantly publicly shame these people from all channels at all times, how else will they know they’re so wrong that signaling their wrongness is the most important function society serves?

gallerdude 9y ago

I disagree. We get nowhere by making fun of other people or taking the moral high-ground. Progress comes by having real conversations with others, no matter how much we disagree with what they have to say. It's easy and fun to call someone racist and walk away, but the right thing to do is having them explain how they feel and just talking to them about it. I also don't understand how normalization is an issue? We get nowhere by censoring the our least favorite ideas in society. We get somewhere by bringing them out, and talking about why we disagree with the points made, in a respectful manner. Relevant article from The Onion: http://www.theonion.com/article/former-conservative-recalls-belittling-tirade-coll-56825 http://www.theonion.com/article/former-conservative-recalls-...

justin66 9y ago
> We get somewhere by bringing them out, and talking about why we disagree with the points made, in a respectful manner. It's not as if Neo-Nazis are "making points."
HillaryBriss 9y ago
an additional argument for protecting free speech for extremist ideas: the rest of society has a better sense of who these people are, what they're doing, what they're thinking, where they're going. the rest of society has more information about the extremists than it would if they were always suppressed.

xupybd 9y ago

I don't think this is true. You can disagree with a person without having to make every effort to signal they are evil. If you do this it just becomes group a vs group b. We like to form groups and defend our own instinctually. But our societies have grown in a way that means these instincts no longer help us but hinder us. Only when you find a way past that can you actually reason with a person.

twobyfour 9y ago
Perhaps we shouldn't be signaling that a person is evil, but it's damn well in unbent upon us all to trumpet the fact that their beliefs are evil.