5 ms·

> The cure for discrimination is forgiveness. The cure for violence is forgiveness. The cure for hatred is forgiveness. Stepping aside from the main debate, ho

> The cure for discrimination is forgiveness. The cure for violence is forgiveness. The cure for hatred is forgiveness. Stepping aside from the main debate, how can you possibly justify this? If I'm going to be forgiven every time I discriminate, assault, and slander people, why would I ever want to change my behavior? After all, I get rewarded for it: When I do those things I gain advantages over other people that benefit me, not to mention the psychological rush of dominating others. You forgive me for those things? Over and over, unconditionally? That sounds to me like I'm your god and I can do with you as a I please. Discrimination, violence, and hatred are antisocial behaviors. They need to be reduced in a way that is just and fair and effective. Forgiveness is none of those.

philosopher1234 4y ago
The forgiveness line is straight out of the Bible. If you were a domineering tyrant wouldn’t it be convenient if your population were obligated to forgive you? Sounds pretty docile
Jochim 4y ago
> Discrimination, violence, and hatred are antisocial behaviors. They need to be reduced in a way that is just and fair and effective. Forgiveness is none of those. The key thing for me is we give people the opportunity to change. This doesn't necessarily mean that there shouldn't be consequences. Only that the consequences are proportionate and finite. In my opinion, hostility towards people who have made mistakes is a major problem that holds the left back. Identity politics has been very successful in driving a wedge between groups that would otherwise have very similar economic and class interests. I don't believe that was a mistake.
- philosopher1234 4y ago
  Is the hostility from the right holding them back? It doesn’t seem like it. is it only the left that is not allowed to have aggression?
  - Jochim 4y ago
    I didn't say the left aren't allowed to have aggression. However, I do think it needs to be directed at the right people. My point was that the right are much more likely to look past things they might disagree with rather than excluding that person entirely. The most obvious example of this being evangelical support for Trump (and other Republicans) despite his numerous affairs. I'm in no way saying that going that far is desirable. However, I do think less ideological purity and more flexibility would be beneficial in bringing in people who agree on the core values.
    - philosopher1234 4y ago
      > My point was that the right are much more likely to look past things they might disagree with rather than excluding that person entirely. Like women who have abortions? Gay people? Trans people? Liberals? Communists? I'm not against flexibility, but IMO the left is far too forgiving, and needs to be much more aggressive. the Trump right is a fascist party, and the left needs to openly recognize that.
      - Jochim 4y ago
        > Like women who have abortions? Gay people? Trans people? Liberals? Communists? Yes. The right are quite ready to entirely ignore pretty much all of that if you're in agreement with them on whatever other issue is currently at hand. Plenty of women on the right have had abortions. Some fairly prominent gay figures would be Dave Rubin and Milo Yiannopoulos. I don't think Blair White needs much introduction either. Ben Shapiro is quite clearly Jewish and regularly reposted by the same kind of guys that were chanting "Jews will not replace us" in Charlottesville. The right are practical beyond the point of hypocrisy when it comes to the topic of the moment. > I'm not against flexibility, but IMO the left is far too forgiving, and needs to be much more aggressive. the Trump right is a fascist party, and the left needs to openly recognize that. The left needs to be aggressive in the right way. The right are extremely effective at being extremely hateful while also guiding relatively normal, if sometimes problematic, people down a path that takes them much farther right. From what I've seen, leftists doing the same work to reach out to the uninformed and apathetic are often attacked for a perceived lack ideological purity. I've not seen that kind of behaviour from the right and I think it plays a big part in pushing people away. Besides, elements of the left are already aggressive, in the wrong way. Personally I think allowing race to supplant class as the primary talking point has been a huge mistake. You essentially alienate a great many people who would otherwise share a common interest by allowing the issue to be morphed into a blame game with fingers pointed across racial lines.
commandlinefan 4y ago
> If I'm going to be forgiven every time I discriminate, assault, and slander people If that's too much, you could at least forgive the people who had nothing to do with the discrimination, assault and slander - which is something that Kendi doesn't seem to be able to do.

philosopher1234 4y ago

The forgiveness line is straight out of the Bible. If you were a domineering tyrant wouldn’t it be convenient if your population were obligated to forgive you? Sounds pretty docile

Jochim 4y ago

> Discrimination, violence, and hatred are antisocial behaviors. They need to be reduced in a way that is just and fair and effective. Forgiveness is none of those. The key thing for me is we give people the opportunity to change. This doesn't necessarily mean that there shouldn't be consequences. Only that the consequences are proportionate and finite. In my opinion, hostility towards people who have made mistakes is a major problem that holds the left back. Identity politics has been very successful in driving a wedge between groups that would otherwise have very similar economic and class interests. I don't believe that was a mistake.

philosopher1234 4y ago
Is the hostility from the right holding them back? It doesn’t seem like it. is it only the left that is not allowed to have aggression?
- Jochim 4y ago
  I didn't say the left aren't allowed to have aggression. However, I do think it needs to be directed at the right people. My point was that the right are much more likely to look past things they might disagree with rather than excluding that person entirely. The most obvious example of this being evangelical support for Trump (and other Republicans) despite his numerous affairs. I'm in no way saying that going that far is desirable. However, I do think less ideological purity and more flexibility would be beneficial in bringing in people who agree on the core values.
  - philosopher1234 4y ago
    > My point was that the right are much more likely to look past things they might disagree with rather than excluding that person entirely. Like women who have abortions? Gay people? Trans people? Liberals? Communists? I'm not against flexibility, but IMO the left is far too forgiving, and needs to be much more aggressive. the Trump right is a fascist party, and the left needs to openly recognize that.
    - Jochim 4y ago
      > Like women who have abortions? Gay people? Trans people? Liberals? Communists? Yes. The right are quite ready to entirely ignore pretty much all of that if you're in agreement with them on whatever other issue is currently at hand. Plenty of women on the right have had abortions. Some fairly prominent gay figures would be Dave Rubin and Milo Yiannopoulos. I don't think Blair White needs much introduction either. Ben Shapiro is quite clearly Jewish and regularly reposted by the same kind of guys that were chanting "Jews will not replace us" in Charlottesville. The right are practical beyond the point of hypocrisy when it comes to the topic of the moment. > I'm not against flexibility, but IMO the left is far too forgiving, and needs to be much more aggressive. the Trump right is a fascist party, and the left needs to openly recognize that. The left needs to be aggressive in the right way. The right are extremely effective at being extremely hateful while also guiding relatively normal, if sometimes problematic, people down a path that takes them much farther right. From what I've seen, leftists doing the same work to reach out to the uninformed and apathetic are often attacked for a perceived lack ideological purity. I've not seen that kind of behaviour from the right and I think it plays a big part in pushing people away. Besides, elements of the left are already aggressive, in the wrong way. Personally I think allowing race to supplant class as the primary talking point has been a huge mistake. You essentially alienate a great many people who would otherwise share a common interest by allowing the issue to be morphed into a blame game with fingers pointed across racial lines.

commandlinefan 4y ago

> If I'm going to be forgiven every time I discriminate, assault, and slander people If that's too much, you could at least forgive the people who had nothing to do with the discrimination, assault and slander - which is something that Kendi doesn't seem to be able to do.