9 ms·
This is true, but it depends on the topic. If I have a very strong opinion about the ineffectiveness of the Laffer curve when setting tax policy, I can probably
by sagichmal 6y ago
This is true, but it depends on the topic. If I have a very strong opinion about the ineffectiveness of the Laffer curve when setting tax policy, I can probably be pretty good friends with somebody who believes the opposite. But I think it probably is important that we don't remain friends with people who deny other people's essential humanity, or who support political policies that have no effect other than to hurt people, and so on. Just because an opinion can be described as political doesn't mean that it's automatically coequal with others, and we don't have an obligation of deference.
- NateEag 6y agoDaryl Davis has converted a lot of KKK members away from racism by risking his life to befriend them. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daryl_Davis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daryl_Davis How many people have you seen converted from dangerous beliefs by isolating them away from dissimilar thinkers?
- sagichmal 6y agoThat's a nice story and I'm sure he's a great guy but it's not an effective policy at the macro scale and that's what matters.
- NateEag 6y agoDaryl's approach works, at least for him. I suspect others can learn to do it, too. I have seen no evidence whatsoever that refusing to interact with people deradicalizes them. The filter bubble phenomenon suggests the opposite. I'll take a strategy that's known to work with unclear scalability over a scalable one with no evidence it works, every time.
- sagichmal 6y agoI don't really care so much about the individual voter, I care about how far their voice reaches on the Internet, I care about the people they influence, I care about their children, I care about higher-level things.
- NateEag 6y agoI don't understand how that relates to what I said. Would you mind explaining further?
- sagichmal 6y agobuilding personal relationships with individuals in order to deradicalize them one by one is not a viable strategy at the macro level. It's efficacy is irrelevant to me.
- esja 6y agoHow is it not viable? If every person who went to a BLM protest also made friends with one police officer, don't you think that might be extremely effective?
- sagichmal 6y agoHaha, obviously not?
- NateEag 6y agoBegging the question is not going to convince people you're right.
- sagichmal 6y agoI'm not really begging the question, because I'm not trying to convince anyone that a general policy of individual empathetic outreach isn't effective at a macro scale. For one thing, it's self-evident, and I'm not really interested in "debating" anyone who would challenge that. For another thing, it's a tangent from the main point of the thread.
- sagichmal 6y agoWhat do you think is a more effective way to deradicalize white nationalists as measured on a societal level: engaging them on the merits of their arguments and having a good-faith debate, or deplatforming them?
- anjbe 6y agoWhen has it ever been tried at the macro scale?
- landryraccoon 6y agoYou seem pretty confident, why do you think it would not work at macro scale? If you are saying that empathy doesn’t scale, that’s a pretty dark view that requires some evidence. Are people born racist? Does education an outreach not work? I really don’t see why you’d be so certain.
- lawnchair_larry 6y agoDavis is a brilliant man that understands something about humans that far too many people don’t. He came to that understanding by engaging and asking questions. This strategy single handedly abolished more KKK members than anything else. Contrast to the extremists of today like BLM who are having the opposite effect and pushing more people to racism. We’re going backwards. Then again, it’s not like BLM is actually motivated by their clever branding, so this is unsurprising.
- sagichmal 6y ago> This strategy single handedly abolished more KKK members than anything else. Obviously this is not true.
- NateEag 6y agoOP's claim is quite bold and they did not offer evidence. I would describe it as 'unsubstantiated'. To correctly say it is untrue, you must show another strategy actually converted at least hundreds of KKK members (perhaps more, as it's possible people beyond just Daryl got results from this strategy).
- lawnchair_larry 6y agoRepublicans and moderates are not denying anyone’s humanity, nor do they support political policies that have no other effect than to hurt people. Nobody does. Arriving at that conclusion should tell you loud and clear that your model is incomplete and you don’t understand your opponent.
- nindalf 6y agoAre you talking about the party that spent decades motivating turnout by making their base hate gay people? They denied the humanity of gay people, fought to deny them basic human rights and all for what? Just to cynically win elections? If you didn’t know this or chose to ignore it, your model is incomplete and you don’t understand one side.
- lawnchair_larry 6y agoRemind me who voted for DOMA? You need to study a little history.
- sagichmal 6y agoYou're not acting in good faith here, and it's both obvious and hilarious. You respond to someone summarizing decades of malignant propagandizing with, literally, a Whataboutism dredging up a single minor procedural issue, out of context, from like 23 years ago, and pretend that single disingenuous statement disarms the thing it's responding to. This is -- you are -- exactly what I'm talking about.
- sagichmal 6y agoRepublicans in 2020 are absolutely and inarguably doing those things. Every vote for that party in our zeitgeist is motivated in no small part by active malignancy. It's the defining characteristic of their leader, unavoidable and undeniable, and as of the convention the party literally has no platform except to serve and support his whims. So there is absolutely a right and a wrong side to things right now.