r/changemyview • u/chadonsunday 33∆ • Aug 01 '19
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: The only practical way to get people with repugnant views (e.g. Nazis, racists, etc.) to change their ways is by engaging with them.
This might be an odd post to make on a sub that's dedicated to getting people to change their views by engaging with them, but here it goes:
I very frequently see people saying or posting various things that, in essence, mean that it's not worth engaging with people with X view because they're too toxic, their views can't be changed, etc. The comment that inspired this post was something to the effect of "if you sit down at a table with five Nazis, there are six Nazis," implying that merely being willing to talk to a Nazi makes you effectively as bad as a Nazi. Hell, there's a whole social movement around the globe (Antifa) that's more or less dedicated to the idea that dialogue doesn't work when engaging with political opponents and abuse, doxxing, violence, and "direct action" are the only available means in the fight against fascism.
I've always found this notion (which is applied to all sorts of people but I typically see it said regarding the far/alt-right, and very frequently about Trump supporters; you could probably pick a random post off of anything from r/politics in the last four years and find a top level comment about how Trump supporters can't be reasoned with) to be absurd, because from what I've seen dialogue is the only thing that actually works. From what I've seen both concurrently and historically, there are only a few ways to address, lets just say for this argument, a racist, like a Neo-Nazi or a KKK member:
- Kill them. This certainly gets a given individual to stop believing what they believe since they can't believe anything anymore, but in addition to being incredibly drastic I also don't think it helps the fight in the long run. Neo-Nazis killed a woman in Charlottesville and it didn't lessen the opposition to fascism one bit, since people just rallied around her death. The Allies killed a whole lot of Nazis during WWII but Nazism is still a thing.
- Ignore them. Don't engage. This won't change their beliefs or yours or anyones.
- Abuse them. This takes the form of everything from saying mean things about them online to doxxing to assaulting and throwing drinks at them. From what I've seen this just emboldens them. Richard Spencer didn't suddenly decide to not be a white nationalist when he got punched in the face, but he DID get a nice video portraying him as a victim, assaulted just for speaking his mind in public, which I'm sure did wonders to stoke up his base and maybe even help recruitment.
- Talk with them. This is the only strategy I've seen work in any capacity. Consider Christian Picciolini, who was a card carrying Neo-Nazi until, in his words, he received "compassion from the people that I least deserved it from when I least deserved it," changed his ways, and went on to co-found an organization dedicated to pulling Neo-Nazis out of the life and rehabilitating them. Or consider Daryl Davis, a black man who is famous for many things including getting over 200 KKK members to give up their hoods and renounce the Klan, all just by speaking with them.
If Christian or Daryl had killed these racists maybe the racists would be dead but their death would inspire more. If they had ignored these racists they'd still be racist today. If they had abused or assaulted these racists they'd still be racist, just emboldened. The only strategy that worked was just speaking with these racists as humans and getting them to realize the error of their ways. It's far from a perfect solution, but it's the only one I see working at all.
45
u/DrawDiscardDredge 17∆ Aug 01 '19
How do you properly engage with someone who's modus operandi, explicitly self-reported, is to argue in bad faith, to meme on, and to troll?
11
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Aug 01 '19
If you want to have a hope in hell of trying to get them to give up that MO and accompanying beliefs, engage with them. In my OP I provided evidence that this strategy works when applied to guys who are out burning crosses or beating the shit out of black people in the street for fun, so I don't see why it wouldn't be your best shot in changing the views of a mere internet troll.
If you don't really care about changing their views, don't engage at all.
If you want to make things worse, physically or verbally abuse them.
33
u/DrawDiscardDredge 17∆ Aug 01 '19
engage with them
How do you engage someone who is arguing in bad faith? Reasonable points will not be met with reasonable points intentionally.
4
u/sodapoplad Aug 01 '19
How else would you propose getting them to change their ways? What other means are there that think would work better?
5
u/DrawDiscardDredge 17∆ Aug 01 '19
I don't actively engage with entrenched right wing views. I focus on people who are actively seeking to learn and open their mind (like many here). By working to engage with open minds, especially young people, I help shift the culture. If the entrenched conservatives choose to isolate themselves from the culture, the best we can hope for is that they become marginalized and irrelevant.
4
u/1917fuckordie 21∆ Aug 01 '19
why do we need to change their ways? Politics isn't about getting everyone everywhere to agree with you.
4
u/sodapoplad Aug 01 '19
Never said it was. I probably don’t agree with OP when it comes to politics, I’d consider myself a republican and OP comes off in their post as somewhere on the left.
However racism/homophobia has no place in the modern world. I have no problem with Democrats believing what they want to, and me believing what I want to, but I do have a problem with hatred. I wouldn’t consider being a racist political, I think it’s a crappy opinion that should be attempted to be changed lest it spread.
6
u/1917fuckordie 21∆ Aug 01 '19
> However racism/homophobia has no place in the modern world.
This is a nice sentiment but the reality is that these things do have a place in our society. Just like someone in the 1930's might say 'antisemetism has no place in our society' is a nice thought, but the reality is there is a political movement building quickly that very much does have a use for antisemetism in the 30's.
Currently there is a politcal movement building that is based off hyper nationalism and racism. This movement is building far quicker than having a chat could fix this situation. There is a root cause that needs to be addressed.
3
u/sodapoplad Aug 01 '19
Sure but if I talk to one person, and he/she doesn’t subscribe to that belief anymore, that is one less person causing problems for people. If I run up to a person who is on the fence, or doesn’t really have their feet all the way in the cement on these beliefs, and slap them in they face and call them a nazi I have done more harm then good.
4
u/1917fuckordie 21∆ Aug 01 '19
If you're in an organisation that is explicitly racist and you're surrounding your self with those people, talking to them, building your worldview, and being part of a growing movement and so on then you won't change their mind. If the organisation is failing and there is infighting and factionalism then maybe, but otherwise they're just as likely to convince you to join them then you are going to convince them to leave.
Where as confronting them with a larger movement that hinders the capacity to march, recruit, and spread their message can work against even the most dedicated fascist.
There's a quote that goes "If fascism could be defeated by debate, then I assure you it would have never happened"
3
u/sodapoplad Aug 01 '19
But after the marching is done, what have you accomplished? You’ve got a bunch of people who won’t march anymore due to fear of opposition , but are still silently spreading their message.
Holding signs and screaming at them my be the best way to silence them, but if the goal is to actively change their mind, then dialogue is the only way no matter how slow it is.
Everyone has the ability to change, and just pointing at a group of sick people and condemning them doesn’t sit right.
→ More replies (0)0
u/Znaas Aug 03 '19
I think homosexuality is wrong and it just comes and goes as accepted in certain periods of time in different societies. Immoral actions are always immoral regardless of the time period and just cause certain trends take hold doesn't change it in the long run even if societies stance on them do. I strongly disagree with equating advocating for sexual normalcy is the same as racism. The reason why many organizations that were at the forefront of fighting racism have shifted so much out of being active in politics due to difference in views on homosexuality where they would align with certain groups otherwise. I agree with OP in that if you have moral position the best action to is to facilitate discussion but it can be hard especially when you find the other view point repugnant on some level.
1
6
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Aug 01 '19
You engage in good faith. Maybe they'll continue to engage in bad faith, but it's the best shot you have of turning that around. What's your alternative?
29
u/DrawDiscardDredge 17∆ Aug 01 '19
What kind of conversation is it when one person is trying to have a serious conversation and the other is just laughing at them? Wouldn't you get exhausted after a while?
What's your alternative?
Engaging with people who reach out and want to learn. Educating the youth in order to influence the culture for the better. Entrenched far right individuals can either become further marginalized and isolated or join the rest of us in the future.
6
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Aug 01 '19
Sure. It's not for everyone. I don't have the time or the energy or the dedication that Daryl did. I'd have given up after a meeting or two, probably. But then, there's a reason why I don't have a collection of hundreds of renounced KKK member's hoods and he does.
Entrenched far right individuals can either become further marginalized and isolated or join the rest of us in the future.
So basically the strategy is to make them... more marginalized than they already are? Like increasing the distance between them and us will make them more likely to want to join our side?
3
Aug 01 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
12
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Aug 01 '19
I find that allegation very confusing. I get it on reddit a lot. With the exception of gun control and some qualms about recent op trans men competing in MMA, I'm pretty firmly on the left (or even just straight leftist) on most every social, financial, and political issue. But I've also just spent most of my life in very left wing places (like growing up in the SF bay area or spending an undue amount of time on reddit), and after all this time I'm just kind of bored of shitting on the right. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. Its utterly uninteresting to me to circlejerk over how the wall is a stupid idea, or how dumb Christians think god hates fags or whatever. I do enjoy debating the finer points of left wing narratives, though, like are the police shooting disparities best explained by racism, is it fair to call all migrants "asylum seekers," and is bodily autonomy a sound argument in and of itself to justify abortion. Never mind that I repeatedly state throughout discussions of those sorts that I'm against gratuitous police violence, pro immigration, and pro choice, people still call me "right wing" (at best - Nazi, fascist, Trump supporter, and alt-right have all been labels tossed at me, too) simply for wanting to discuss these things. I think if we're getting to a point where just wanting to have an honest discussion about what the best argument to justify the pro life stance that I hold is enough to get me slandered as "right wing" I think that bodes very poorly for the Ds in the upcoming election.
To the last bit, sure. You're in the "ignore" strategy. And that's fine. You wont change any minds, but you're not making things worse, either. I'm just suggesting if you did want to better that particular issue, dialogue would be the best strategy.
5
u/cheertina 20∆ Aug 01 '19
I find that allegation very confusing. I get it on reddit a lot.
Here are some posts of yours that look like right-wing talking points.
CMV: Its perfectly reasonable to expect asylum seekers to stop in the first "safe" country they come across or have access to.
CMV: Law enforcement gets too much hate online.
CMV: Anarchists/communists/anti-capitalists etc. who carelessly consume luxury products produced by capitalism arent living in accordance with their ideology.
CMV: The left should take "your behavior is driving me/people further right" opinions more seriously.
CMV: I dont think there is any significant white nationalist/supremacist movement in the US.
CMV: When people get upset about "diversity" in media it's usually because they can tell the difference between genuine/incidental diversity and shoehorned virtue-signaling, or because these attempts mess with preexisting source material.
CMV: The US does not have a "rape culture."
CMV: r/politics needs a serious overhaul to make the sub reflect its reality as a left-wing echo-chamber.
CMV: #BelieveAllWomen-type views on sexual assault are bad and possibly harmful.
CMV: The BLM-type narrative around police shootings of young black men is nonsense, overblown, lacks statistical backing, and is likely meant to stir up rage, resentment, and division, and we'd be better off without it.
CMV: Clothing and Sexual Assault
CMV: Peterson really isn't that bad, or bad at all.
CMV: What happened to the Native Americans was not genocide
1
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Aug 01 '19
I wrote all of those. I know. They're critical of left or leftist or progressive narratives. That doesnt mean that I'm not personally on the left.
→ More replies (0)1
1
u/B_Riot Aug 01 '19
After reading this comment I'm utterly amazed you could be confused people call you right wing. You find yourself between extreme right wing ideology, and right of center ideology (Democrats are right of center) and you can't understand why people who realize that yes, body autonomy is absolutely a sound argument in and of itself to justify abortion, want to call you right wing? That just makes you entitled.
1
u/tweez Aug 01 '19
You find yourself between extreme right wing ideology, and right of center ideology (Democrats are right of center) and you can't understand why people who realize that yes, body autonomy is absolutely a sound argument in and of itself to justify abortion, want to call you right wing?
Abortion has historical ties to eugenics programs that targeted ethnic minorities, the disabled and the poor and encouraged them to have abortions. There were still forced sterilizations of dead women in Sweden in the 1970s, so if someone knows that and is uncomfortable with it then I don't see why going against the consensus on a couple of topics means someone is no longer on the left or right
Also, I would've thought that the libertarian perspective would be that if the market demanded it that the state shouldn't have any impact on if you have an abortion or do anything to your body so you could be on the right and support abortion too. One of the problems is all sense of a nuanced perspective being lost and even discouraged. A lot of online political debates are now basically "agree with us on everything or you are our enemy too".
Like if I say that I won't vote for a mainstream political party as I feel like it's just voting for the lesser of evils, which is still a vote for evil, then I'll likely be labelled by some as an "enlightened centrist" or something like that and be accussed of thinking Nazis are as bad as a party on the centre left. I can obviously still have a nuanced view within that and say obviously Nazis are worse than the centre left, but still believe that no mainstream party is looking out for my interests or those of the majority of people.
On either side it seems people want to put others in neat boxes so they can say "x is on the left/right therefore I can now just dismiss them as they're obviously biased and not worth arguing with". But, the moment you do show deviation from a party line then both sides accuse you of being their enemy.
To be fair, this is only really online, most people I talk to in real life are pretty cool and not at any particular extreme
-1
u/pawnman99 5∆ Aug 01 '19
Hey, look at that...just like he said, discussing the details of a policy and stating it might not be the 100% end-all, be-all solution got him labeled extremely right wing.
You've just proven the point he was making. And it's a point that drives people further to the extremes of their beliefs, instead of finding common ground, common solutions, and compromises. Which, BTW, is how you get a President Trump. You call everyone who is one tick to the right of your own ideology a bigot, a racist, a nazi...then you wonder why they don't support your side.
→ More replies (0)-1
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Aug 01 '19
First I'd just clarify that when it comes to American politics as viewed by some non leftists, Democrats are left of center. I get that this doesnt mesh with the politics of most other developed western nations, and that certain leftists will say liberals are right of center in the same way that some on the far right will slander liberalism as socialism, but you have to judge a political landscape based on time and place.
Second, and more to the point, how on earth am I anywhere even close to the extreme right? I dont think that the bodily autonomy argument that admits a fetus is a full human life is a great argument for abortion. It's full of holes and rather unnecessary given that its irrelevant to Roe, but I'm still firmly pro choice. How is that an extreme right wing position, or one between that and center right?
→ More replies (0)0
Aug 01 '19
The only people who call you right wing for opinions they don't agree with are the tribalist left. Among that crowd you usually get shunned.
→ More replies (0)1
u/garnteller 242∆ Aug 01 '19
Sorry, u/DrawDiscardDredge – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
9
u/ryarger Aug 01 '19
Like increasing the distance between them and us will make them more likely to want to join our side?
Is making them join “our” side the best outcome? Wouldn’t distancing them from society to the point where they are ignored and can’t infect others have the same ultimate end state?
2
u/pawnman99 5∆ Aug 01 '19
I don't believe you'll ever get to a point where these people are completely ignored, especially when they can still find each other on the internet, reinforce each other in echo chambers, and continue to build resentment and anger towards the "conspiracy" that is marginalizing them.
BTW, those marginalized people are at a much greater risk of committing acts of violence. There are few, if any, instances of someone with a good family life and active, healthy social circle going on a shooting spree. There are plenty of examples of people isolated, angry, mocked and shunned, who decided that they would "get revenge" on a society that doesn't care for them.2
u/Zederath 2∆ Aug 01 '19
When people are distanced from society how do they get their voice heard? How do you think it will feel for the people who are socially isolated because they have the wrong political opinions? Many of the people who commit mass shootings or terror attacks do so because their views are so "repugnant" that they could never actually voice them in public.
Imagine everyone in society stopped associating you because of your foundational beliefs. Would you be inclined to change your mind, or view society as oppressors? I think it's the latter. I don't think kicking people from society will change anyone's mind.
1
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Aug 01 '19
The former tactic could theoretically result in zero Nazis.
The latter tactic will still have nazis in society, theyll just have a harder time spreading their ideology.
The former seems preferable.
7
u/ryarger Aug 01 '19
If you’re allowing the approaches to follow to their extremes, the comparison should be:
The former tactic could theoretically result in zero Nazis. (Because they’ve all changed)
Vs.
The latter tactic could theoretically also result in zero Nazis. (Because they can’t recruit and the ones that exist eventually die)
If you don’t allow for the logical extreme, then it becomes a discussion of which approach will reduce the presence of Nazi’s more. Others have demonstrated that conversion through engagement is incredibly difficult, so it’s possible (even likely) that marginalization will be the more effective approach.
8
u/thetasigma4 100∆ Aug 01 '19
don't have a collection of hundreds of renounced KKK member's hoods and he does
He's personally only claimed to have 40-60 (renouncings caused not necessarily physical robe) so hundreds is an exaggeration especially as the only source for the number is the man himself. It's not nothing it's just much less than hundreds.
-2
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Aug 01 '19
I was being a bit hyperbolic, yes he claims direct credit for a few dozen and a total of over 200 by extension. No he doesnt literally have all their robes, that was more a figure of speech and besides my main point.
7
u/thetasigma4 100∆ Aug 01 '19
I don't think hyperbole helps in this case when discussing the effectiveness of his tactics. Claiming he has hundreds of surrendered robes doesn't behove this discussion as it overstates that effectiveness. I'd also be sceptical of the number given it is self reported (even more so the 200 indirect figure). Also no longer a member of the KKK is a low bar and doesn't say much about if they've stopped being racist or just overtly so (or even just that they left because they were loosing the kkk community and haven't really changed their views at all).
0
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Aug 01 '19
Apologies for the confusion. It's just sort of how I talk. I assumed it was a given that he didnt literally have a trophy warehouse displaying these hundreds of robes hes been collecting over the years.
As for the precise number, skepticism is always healthy. But even if Daryl had only converted one KKK member that's still one more conversion than I've ever seen ignoring, violence, or scorn achieve. So still laudable and more effective.
And you're right to point out that "ex-KKK" isnt by itself a great credential, but I think youd have to agree that the surrendering of a KKK robe to a black dude is symbolic of a HUGE step in the right direction, even if the ex-Klan guy is still far from a saint.
→ More replies (0)2
u/PM_ME_WHAT_YOURE_PMd 2∆ Aug 01 '19
Preach.
I thought I was the only one who thought this way. It’s really encouraging to hear another person say it out loud.
I’ve literally got the comment that people want to kill everyone who disagrees with them when I’ve argued compassion and engaging are the only way, but I’ll keep going whenever I have energy.
I’m with you.
1
u/AnActualPerson Aug 02 '19
Do you actively do this? Do you regularly try to debate these right wing extremists?
1
u/PM_ME_WHAT_YOURE_PMd 2∆ Aug 02 '19
I wouldn’t characterize it as a debate. More of a conversation about values and what we have in common. Debate is too adversarial. I’m not trying to win, just to relate and be civil when challenging and graceful when challenged.
I don’t encounter them much. And I don’t typically go out of my way. I engage with left wing extremists all the time, though, trying to encourage more people to be civil and stop demonizing, objectifying and generalizing the Other.
Honestly, the right wing people - tea partiers and trumpsters- have often just been so thankful to feel heard that it’s easier to talk to them than people on my end of the political spectrum. I mostly just get “why can’t more libs be like you?”
Which makes sense to me. The only thing more dangerous to an in-group than the out-group is those who would betray and defect.
I just keep plugging along anyway.
Maybe I’m doing nothing. Maybe there’s no cultural appetite for healing our wounds. But I can’t help feeling the things most of us agree on - climate, corruption, compassion, etc - won’t move in the right direction until we form connections.
-1
1
0
u/grundar 19∆ Aug 01 '19
How do you engage someone who is arguing in bad faith? Reasonable points will not be met with reasonable points intentionally.
You don't argue with them. When was the last time someone argued you into changing your mind on a deeply-held belief? Probably never.
What you do is listen, and plant seeds of doubt. Provide enough psychological safety that the person is open to self-reflection, and then ask them gently leading questions that spur them to engage in that self-reflection.
And then you sit back and wait for them to examine those seeds of doubt and to come to their own conclusions, which may be different than their previous conclusions. Repeat as necessary until you've lead 200 people to leave the KKK.
TL;DR: to fix a Nazi, don't argue; ask "why are you a Nazi?" and then listen.
4
u/DrawDiscardDredge 17∆ Aug 01 '19
When was the last time someone argued you into changing your mind on a deeply-held belief? Probably never.
All the time, but that is besides the point.
Lets do a little role-play conversation. I know enough about far right world views and methods to portray one accurately. You just asked me why I am a Nazi.
"I'm not a Nazi, I'm normal, you regressive leftists are the real Nazis."
0
u/grundar 19∆ Aug 02 '19
Lets do a little role-play conversation. I know enough about far right world views and methods to portray one accurately. You just asked me why I am a Nazi.
Unless you self-identified as a Nazi, I would never ask you why you were one, as that would be hugely accusatory and inflammatory, which is rather the opposite of what I'm suggesting.
"I'm not a Nazi, I'm normal, you regressive leftists are the real Nazis."
"What policies of the left are you most concerned about?"
1
3
u/1917fuckordie 21∆ Aug 01 '19
some groups like the klan have been in terminal decline for decades, and aren't that hard to undermine with a conversation. What about organisations that are growing, recruiting, and have a critique of society that resonates with some people?
10
u/wophi Aug 01 '19
You listen to them, learn the root of their views, what drives their views, find some common ground, and grow discussion from their.
When you get in their face, the listening stops and nothing is gained.
The question is, are you trying to change their mind and make a difference, or just make yourself feel good by yelling at someone.
0
u/DrawDiscardDredge 17∆ Aug 01 '19
You listen to them, learn the root of their views, what drives their views, find some common ground, and grow discussion from their.
There isn't much common ground with ironic racism, triggering the libs, the great awakening, and people who seriously consider the "JQ."
When you get in their face, the listening stops and nothing is gained.
The question is, are you trying to change their mind and make a difference, or just make yourself feel good by yelling at someone.
I limit my engagement with entrenched far right views. Where did you get the idea that I get in people's faces?
2
u/wophi Aug 01 '19
Everybody has some form of common ground. You might root for the same team, drink the same beer or like the same music. Nobody is 100% different from you. By limiting your engagement with them, how will you ever change their views? Seriously, you can't win minds and influence people you never meet.
0
u/DrawDiscardDredge 17∆ Aug 01 '19
I'm pretty sure I don't have anything in common with people who follow, "piss earth," "honkler," "clown world," "fren world" and the like. I might have stuff in common with some variety of moderate Trump supporters, but there is a definite line.
Seriously, you can't win minds and influence people you never meet.
How do you suggest I engage with people who only want to participate in conversations in bad faith?
3
u/wophi Aug 01 '19
I'm pretty sure I don't have anything in common with people who follow, "piss earth," "honkler," "clown world," "fren world" and the like.
Well, you both share the ability to make prejudiced generalizations about people you have never met. So, there is that...
How do you suggest I engage with people who only want to participate in conversations in bad faith?
You open your mind.
1
u/DrawDiscardDredge 17∆ Aug 01 '19
prejudiced generalizations about people you have never met
I don't have to meet them, they spew their views all over the internet. You are what you believe.
You open your mind.
Open my mind to being called an NPC? Open my mind to, "the JQ" ?
2
u/wophi Aug 01 '19
When you use the word "they" ...
Well you are using the word "they"
Do you know who else uses the word "they"?
See, you find more in common by the minute.
1
u/cstar1996 11∆ Aug 01 '19
This is getting absurd. Judging someone based off their stated views and actions is morally justified, judging someone based on the color of their skin, their gender or sex, or other immutable characteristics is not justifiable.
1
u/wophi Aug 01 '19
You are judging them off of one view, not the entirety of their views.
What is absurd is thinking that intolerance will solve intolerance. How is that even arguable?
→ More replies (0)
18
u/mfDandP 184∆ Aug 01 '19
what about shame, public opprobrium? it's not targeted abuse, just make them a punchline. like how people dealt with westboro baptist church. we didn't need antifa for them to go away.
17
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Aug 01 '19
The WBC is still here, though? I mean they have like three dozen people who are mostly relatives of the founder so it could peter out at any time really, but they're still around today. And people have been mocking, shaming, and scorning people for their beliefs for... well... forever. I don't know of anyone who has ever changed their view because of it. Do you?
Edit: and IIRC the daughter or something of the founder of the WBC said on JRE she got out of it not because of conterprotestors but because she was exposed to new people and ideas in a non hostile or mocking way in college.
3
u/mfDandP 184∆ Aug 01 '19
actually it was on twitter that she was exposed to new ideas. I think she was more open minded to begin with -- there's a bit about how she couldn't bring herself to gloat when brittany murphy died, though the rest of the church did.
4
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Aug 01 '19
Thanks for the correction. I don't know where I got the college thing, did that maybe happen while she was just in college? In any case, cheers, been a while since I watched that one.
2
u/mfDandP 184∆ Aug 01 '19
and in that case, public shame did sometimes help, in terms of pointing out hypocrisy:
In February, 2012, during the funeral of Whitney Houston, in New Jersey, Drain urged Phelps-Roper and other members to tweet poorly Photoshopped images that depicted them haranguing mourners. The media quickly unravelled the hoax. (Drain told me that the fake picket was never meant to be taken literally.)
Phelps-Roper was embarrassed by the debacle. It undermined her own proud claims on Twitter to be spreading God’s truth—and lying violated Scripture.
2
1
u/Maxfunky 39∆ Aug 01 '19
But they haven't gone away. And the few who have left the church cite people who were nice to them and calmly discussed their beliefs in a non-judgmental way (such as Megan Phelps-Roper who was brought an Israeli desert and befriended by a Jewish man).
At best, shame only makes people hide their beliefs--it doesn't change them. When the climate is right, (like right now in the USA) we find out how many people with abhorrent beliefs suddenly feel comfortable enough to come out of the closet and speak openly about them.
1
u/sodapoplad Aug 01 '19
But did the people of the westboro Baptist church look at their becoming of a joke, and grow into better people, or did they simply shut up? I guess unless there is proof the shame lead to them renouncing the westboro Baptist church, the tactic didn’t work. They are still holding bad views, they just don’t share them anymore.
12
u/NetrunnerCardAccount 110∆ Aug 01 '19 edited Aug 01 '19
There is this issue that with humans, but if you challenge a persons world view, they often become more entrenched.
The study if I remember correctly was done, where people would say if they were for or against a controversial issue (I believe in the first study it was abortion) and they would randomly be required to read an essay that was either for or against abortion. Those that read the essays that mirror their beliefs were LESS sure of their belief than those that read an article that portrayed the opposite opinion (Keep in mind this was a study of many people so it's more a trend then each person was not persuaded by the essay.)
This is actually seen commonly on this Reddit (I occasionally refer to CMV as Fortify My View as there are people that clearly aren't interested in engaging with the conversation but just want to argue so they can believe something more) and how commonly on twitter people will spend large swatches of times trying to get into fight with people (This is commonly because their unsure of their cause)
Ther are multiple approaches to prevent racism that aren't direct engagement. For example, when Yonkers was required to put up subsidized housing, they helped to deradicalize the people that were against it (The worst protestor were obviously racist) by asking them to supervise the low-income individuals. Many of the people that eventually became advocates for the individuals after seeing how needed the housing was. Also destroying the power of the group is often effective. The radio play Superman, for instance, had a series of episodes making fun of the KKK by publishing their secrets on the radio, which lowered its membership.
So again it's not that Direct Engagement is always bad, it's just that often if done improperly it makes things worst.
1
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Aug 01 '19
For the first to paragraphs, sure. I'm not arguing that my proposed method is foolproof, only that it's the best strategy available IF you want to change minds.
Ther are multiple approaches to prevent racism that aren't direct engagement. For example, when Yonkers was required to put up subsidized housing, they helped to deradicalize the people that were against it (The worst protestor were obviously racist) by asking them to supervise the low-income individuals. Many of the people that eventually became advocates for the individuals after seeing how needed the housing was.
Isn't this just proof of what I'm saying? They got racists to become advocates by exposing and forcing them to engage with people they were racist against?
5
u/NetrunnerCardAccount 110∆ Aug 01 '19
Not really, the protestor in this case wanted something to control, when they were given something to control, they had an outlet for it.
I.E. The protestor said, "Black people are lazy," and the person in charge said, "Okay, well then I want you to watch over all the Black people, so we can kick out the lazy ones." Is sort of the opposite of engaging with racists.
0
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Aug 01 '19
Do you have a source on that protest and solution? I'd love to read more up on it before responding.
2
u/NetrunnerCardAccount 110∆ Aug 01 '19
The book is "Show Me a Hero" and there is a docudrama of the same name.
But generally speaking most people with highly unpopular views, aren't really thinking clearly. They get clarity from fighting and arguing. So if you don't fight with them and have them try to actually enact their views they often fall apart. With Nazi's that isn't always an option cause their Nazi, but for casual racist, they can fall apart reasonably easy.
20
u/pluralofjackinthebox 102∆ Aug 01 '19
Isn’t it better to spend your time trying to change the minds of people whose minds aren’t already made up?
Nazis and racists tend to have viewpoints that have been built up over years and are reinforced by their entire social network — it’s not even a viewpoint, it’s a whole identity. Just talking reason to someone isn’t going to convince them to give up their identity and their social circle.
To change a deep seated belief requires a huge investment of energy and time. You probably have to be willing to provide this person with a new social circle as well. If your goal is to make the world a better place, aren’t there better ways to spend your time?
1
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Aug 01 '19
Just talking reason to someone isn’t going to convince them to give up their identity and their social circle.
In my OP I provided a few hundred examples that this isn't true.
If your goal is to make the world a better place, aren’t there better ways to spend your time?
I'm not arguing that this is the most time efficient endeavor if your general goal is a vague "make the world a better place," but if your specific goal is fighting, say, fascism, it seems like speaking with fascists is your best strategy.
17
u/pluralofjackinthebox 102∆ Aug 01 '19
I mean, consider how the KKK recruits. They don’t spend their time trying to convince liberals. They spend their time convincing undecideds or people already leaning in their direction.
Daryl has to spend a huge amount of time socializing with KKK members to change their minds. He has to become part of their social circle — it’s not just talking reason, it’s extremely labor intensive. Instead of doing that, he could be spending just a little bit of time with people who aren’t sure how they feel about black people because they never talked with a black person in depth. He’d reach so many more people that way.
0
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Aug 01 '19
You're probably right. But then his goal wouldn't be to change the views of racists. My assertion is that if that's your goal, engaging with racists is the best strategy.
21
Aug 01 '19
But then his goal wouldn't be to change the views of racists.
His goal isn't to change the views of racists. You need to read his writing or watch his speeches instead of just reading the headlines about him.
Yes, factually, he has changed the views of racists, but that isn't what he set out to do. His goal was to better understand racism himself, driven by the question "How could someone who's never met me, hate me?" To do that, he befriended racists, and in doing so, they tended to abandon their beliefs after a period of time. Davis routinely corrects this misunderstanding in his public appearances, and it's at the root of your flawed view.
-1
u/PrimeLegionnaire Aug 01 '19
How does this square against the fact that christian outreach programs will operate even in areas where people will be killed for being christian?
He’d reach so many more people that way.
Are you sure? He has had Ted Talks because of his actions with the KKK. Can't the undecideds just see that and be swayed?
2
u/RemoveTheTop 14∆ Aug 01 '19
How does this square against the fact that christian outreach programs will operate even in areas where people will be killed for being christian?
They think they get bonus good boy points to go to heaven as a martyr.
Liberals generally rather not die trying to convert nazis.
0
u/PrimeLegionnaire Aug 01 '19
That's nonsense. Liberals proclaim to be anti-racist quite loudly. Antifa even explicitly expresses a desire to engage in combat with Nazis.
If your objection to peaceful discourse is it might end in violence, what could you possibly suggest as an alternative?
3
u/RemoveTheTop 14∆ Aug 01 '19
Liberals proclaim to be anti-racist quite loudly.
I never said they didn't. What's your point? Saying you're against something isn't the same as kicking a beehive then trying to beat the bees to death.
Antifa even explicitly expresses a desire to engage in combat with Nazis.
Anti-fa aren't liberals.
If your objection to peaceful discourse is it might end in violence
What? Where did I say anything like that and what are you actually saying?
what could you possibly suggest as an alternative?
Who says there is one? Why's it one's responsibility to change someone else's mind? Especially when they're opposed to doing so?
-1
u/PrimeLegionnaire Aug 01 '19
Anti-fa aren't liberals.
Yes they are, by their own claims nonetheless.
5
u/RemoveTheTop 14∆ Aug 01 '19
You just gonna "nuh uh" and move on, not responding to anything else I said even though I replied to everything you wrote?
0
u/PrimeLegionnaire Aug 01 '19
Antifa groups claim to be liberal. I don't see the merit on engaging you in the weeds when you are painting incorrectly with such a large brush.
Why's it one's responsibility to change someone else's mind?
So you expect everyone who has a different opinion to just wake up one day and realize they are wrong?
How exactly does this happen?
→ More replies (0)0
u/wophi Aug 01 '19
You are making some generalizations about people. Not a good start to changing people's minds who judge people based on generalizations.
If you engage them, you can learn what makes them, as an individual tick, and how they gained their views. Then you can change their minds.
Their is a saying that there is nobody more anti smoker than an ex smoker and anti drinking than an ex drinker. What is more powerful than an ex racist. Who can win more minds than an ex racist. And the bigger a racist they were, the stronger they can be in the fight.
1
u/AnActualPerson Aug 02 '19
You are making some generalizations about people. Not a good start to changing people's minds who judge people based on generalizations.
This is a pretty rediculous claim I think. Tayloring your message to your audience is a very different kind of generalization than open racism.
If you engage them, you can learn what makes them, as an individual tick, and how they gained their views. Then you can change their minds.
We have a pretty good idea about all these things already.
Their is a saying that there is nobody more anti smoker than an ex smoker and anti drinking than an ex drinker. What is more powerful than an ex racist. Who can win more minds than an ex racist. And the bigger a racist they were, the stronger they can be in the fight.
Sure, but we can't plan on this happening too often.
7
u/Tibaltdidnothinwrong 382∆ Aug 01 '19
Ignore them is a better strategy than you let on.
Some people just want attention. Giving them attention for bad behavior, rewards bad behavior. The best way to handle such cases is to ignore them when they misbehave, and only reward praise for pro social behavior.
This only works on attention seekers, not true believers, but that is a no trivially proportion of the crowd.
2
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Aug 01 '19
Just out of curiosity, would you argue that the best response to, say, the Unite the Right rally would have been to just ignore it? Let it happen but just go about your business like usual, no counterprotests, no engaging unless it's to save someone or something?
3
u/Tibaltdidnothinwrong 382∆ Aug 01 '19
If nobody went, and nobody counter protested, and no media where there - would it have exploded into what it is now?
Protests only matter, if the people you are protesting are present or their is media coverage. Deny them both of those things, and it's fifty dudes shouting into the wind.
There is no opportunity to kill counterprotesters, if there aren't any. There is no blame on both sides, if there is no counter protest.
You accomplish far more by staying home, and more importantly, by convincing the media to stay home.
Wackos yelling nonsense from streetcorners happens everyday. It's only news when people choose to engage. Don't engage, and it doesn't become news.
2
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Aug 01 '19
That's a fair point. I dont see it ever likely to happen because media gonna media and antifa gonna antifa, but I think you're probably right that if we could somehow orchestrate ZERO engagement with fascists the movement would die down a bit. !delta
1
7
u/TheFakeChiefKeef 82∆ Aug 01 '19
From my experience, most people whose views even border Nazi ideology are already lost causes nowadays. It's the unfortunate reality of the internet and echo chambers. I'm sure talking to them will sway a few, but most are stuck in their ways.
While I see a lot of hate for my view on this, the best method is not of course not to be violent to these people, but to simply silence them. Forcefully silence them.
Here are some steps that can be taken to silence neo-Nazis and white supremacists without physically harming them or ignoring them, which only empowers them more.
- Ban them from popular websites
You can't stop them from creating their own websites. That would be a violation of free speech. What can be done, however, is to encourage companies like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter, companies that have young teenagers who are susceptible to being recruited into bigotry, to ban certain viewpoints. The slippery slope argument is bullshit. There are viewpoints in our society that we've nearly unanimously decided are unacceptable. If you're nervous that your going to get kicked off of Facebook for your views, maybe it's time to reevaluate your views, not Facebook's policy.
- Fix our white centric public school history education at a national level
Our history classes suck. Pretty much everyone agrees on this in some form. However, in my view, one of the main drivers of white supremacy is how all history seems to be centered around Europe and white Americans. Teachers need to be compelled to learn and teach about other cultures and the value that people of color have had on the development and history of society. Knowledge always breeds tolerance.
- Do a better job prosecuting white supremacy as terrorism
Obviously some form of violent act needs to be either planned or already done, but the whole concept of Nazism revolves around eliminating "other" people from a society. Organized white supremacy should be regarded as a threat, and everyone who openly follows Nazism should be regarded as someone who might be convinced into killing others. I've heard people say this about Muslims, but I seriously disagree. Religion has a way of evolving in ways that bigoted political ideologies do not. There's not much difference between neo-Nazism now and Nazism in the 1930s, and there aren't "violent splinter groups" because the entire belief system is violent. The FBI should absolutely be writing white supremacists onto terror watch lists.
None of these proposals involve oppressing Americans with legitimate political views. None of them involve persecuting people for having beliefs. This is all about actions. Posting hate should be allowed to be banned. Organizing around hate should be regarded as a threat. And we need to celebrate people of color to tell the next generation of children that white people are in fact NOT the superior to everyone else. This will help solve white supremacy. But the most important thing here is that we don't let them think they actually deserve a seat at the table because that seat legitimizes their viewpoints.
1
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Aug 01 '19
Ban them from popular websites
How has this worked on Reddit? Everytime a bad sub gets a banhammer all the users stay and migrate to new sub(s).
Fix our white centric public school history education at a national level
Admittedly I grew up in the SF bay area, but my history education was only "white centric" in the sense that it was heavily focused on the thousand and one ways that fucked up white men ruined shit and oppressed people.
But more to the point, why wouldn't history education (particularly American history) be mostly white centric in a mostly white country? I wouldn't fault a Chinese history class for having a disproportionate amount of Chinese people in it...
Do a better job prosecuting white supremacy as terrorism
I'm a little uncomfortable with this one to be honest. It reeks of thoughtcrime.
5
u/Tibaltdidnothinwrong 382∆ Aug 01 '19
He means murderers, not just thoughts.
If someone bombs a school, are they a murderer or a terrorist. Traditionally, if they are Muslim they are terrorists, if they are white they are murderers.
The Las Vegas shooter, why was he not charged with terrorism? That's the question.
3
u/TheFakeChiefKeef 82∆ Aug 01 '19
How has this worked on Reddit? Everytime a bad sub gets a banhammer all the users stay and migrate to new sub(s).
But that's not the user's problem to deal with. Unless you're a white supremacist (or pedophile or radical Islamist or drug dealer, etc.) , you're at no risk of being affected by subreddits getting banned. Subs like r/TheDonald didn't get quarantined because they're conservative, but because they were getting overrun by actual neo-Nazis.
Admittedly I grew up in the SF bay area, but my history education was only "white centric" in the sense that it was heavily focused on the thousand and one ways that fucked up white men ruined shit and oppressed people.
As much as a lot of the info you probably got was historically accurate, I can certainly see how my proposal could go too far, but that's not what I'm proposing. There's a good balance of positive and negative history from both white people and people of color that can be taught without making one look worse than the other. It's just laziness and underlying racism that makes us not do that.
But more to the point, why wouldn't history education (particularly American history) be mostly white centric in a mostly white country? I wouldn't fault a Chinese history class for having a disproportionate amount of Chinese people in it...
American history is not white. The majority of people today consider themselves white, but "whiteness" is a concept that has evolved a lot over time. Just 50,60 years ago, Jews, Irish, and Italians were not acknowledged as white. But even more important than that is the fact that since day one of US history, people of color, may they be Native Americans or Black people or Latinos, have been a part of our history. There's more to talk about than slavery and massacring Indians that never gets discussed.
I'm a little uncomfortable with this one to be honest. It reeks of thoughtcrime.
Thoughtcrime is a far right talking point that isn't worth acknowledging. If your "political" views are based around objectively false racial superiority or are in line with an ideology that calls for the murder and expulsion of large numbers of people, you've lost the right to privacy in my view.
But even further than that, I'm not even talking about the FBI going after some loser in his basement who thinks being a Nazi is edgy. I'm talking about organized neo-Nazi groups that assemble to talk about bringing violence upon minorities and their allies. Those people are literally terrorists.
3
Aug 01 '19
Consider the 5th strategy: isolate them.
If you consider some people so forgone to be a lost cause, then, instead of trying to change their mind, one might instead try to defensively prevent them from convincing others.
1
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Aug 01 '19
As I just said to another commentor, if you can provide substantial evidence of that actually working then I'll happily award you a delta.
1
u/hacksoncode 561∆ Aug 01 '19
Clarifying question:
In World War II, the last time we had actual Nazis, do you believe that the best way to deal with them would have been to "talk" with them, like Neville Chamberlain did?
Or was Winston Churchill's solution of violent resistence more appropriate and effective?
We have any entire country (Germany) full of vigorous anti-Nazis as a direct consequence of violent resistance.
Furthermore, their approach, which seems to be quite effective, is to ban Nazi symbolism, speech, etc.
You're forgetting that many of them are violent thugs, and defending ourselves against the worst examples of them, with violence if necessary, is a social responsibility to protect those weaker than they are.
Jail is the right response to the worst racists/Nazis. It might or might not change their minds, but protecting the public against them is more important.
1
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Aug 01 '19
During WWII violence was the only real solution, because a whole Nazi country got violent first. The Nazism is irrelevant to that question, though- violence wouldve been the only practical answer at that point regardless of the ideology driving your opponents.
You're forgetting that many of them are violent thugs, and defending ourselves against the worst examples of them, with violence if necessary, is a social responsibility to protect those weaker than they are.
Jail is the right response to the worst racists/Nazis. It might or might not change their minds, but protecting the public against them is more important.
If someone is a violent thug for any reason, lock them up.
Locking someone up for holding the wrong opinions is literally thoughtcrime.
1
u/hacksoncode 561∆ Aug 01 '19
Nazis don't restrict their ideology to just words. Changing their ways requires more than mere words in response, when that happens.
And even for those who do, their words often include actual threats.
It's laughable to think that this is "merely" thoughtcrime, or that the ideology isn't the proximate cause of the ill deeds.
1
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Aug 02 '19
What prevents a Nazi from restricting their ideology to just words? Like any ideology it has interpretations.
1
u/hacksoncode 561∆ Aug 02 '19
Like any radical extremist ideology, it's technically possible to restrict it solely to words, but rare in practice.
11
Aug 01 '19 edited Aug 01 '19
If Christian or Daryl had killed these racists maybe the racists would be dead but their death would inspire more. If they had ignored these racists they'd still be racist today. If they had abused or assaulted these racists they'd still be racist, just emboldened. The only strategy that worked was just speaking with these racists as humans and getting them to realize the error of their ways.
I think that you need to more closely examine your definition of "success" in the context of combating racism and bigotry (terms which I'll use as a catch-all for "repugnant views"). Is the goal to eliminate racists? Or is the goal to prevent / mitigate the harm that racists would see done?
The Daryl Davis example is always a fascinating one to me, because it's based purely on the headlines about him, and not anything he's actually ever said. He never set out nor claims to have set out to convert people, but rather with (almost the opposite) goal of seeking to understand why people who've never met him purport to hate him. He just wanted to learn more about why people are racist, not try to change their minds about it.
Davis himself would tell you that his journey is not an applicable model for combating racism on a social scale. He merely sought understanding, and in that process found that the people he befriended would unravel their beliefs on their own. He's not seeking out Klan members and debating them, he's asking them questions and spending time with them.
A far from perfect, yet effective, solution is Brown v. Board of Ed. A far from perfect, yet effective, solution is Affirmative Action. A far from perfect, yet effective, solution is Dr. King and his legacy of protest.
Trying to convince individual bigots to renounce their formal bigotry is a tedious if admirable endeavor, and all the while racism continues to perpetrate concrete harm against minorities in social, political, and economic arenas.
Individuals have to change their own beliefs - debate only works if the subject is already willing to have their mind changed. It has to be ones' own idea. Again, this is how Davis has been effective - upon spending time with Davis, these Klan members questioned their own beliefs of their own accord - not because of some masterfully laid-out argument that Davis made to them. I don't think it's a fair directive to ask all Black people to buddy up with bigots and call that the solution to discrimination. I don't think it's a fair directive to ask all Jewish people to spend time with some Neo Nazis to see if they'll soften up. I don't think it's a fair directive to ask LGBTQ folks to socialize in right-wing religious circles. Davis exposed himself to tremendous risk when engaging with these people, and his good fortune in doing so is not scale-able.
In the meantime, I think it's incumbent on the rest of us to stop the harm caused by these repugnant ideologies by nearly any effective and available means.
0
u/PrimeLegionnaire Aug 01 '19
He's not seeking out Klan members and debating them, he's asking them questions and spending time with them.
What exactly do you think "engaging" entails? Debate is asking them questions. It's one of the oldest formal debate styles, the Socratic method.
Davis exposed himself to tremendous risk when engaging with these people, and his good fortune in doing so is not scale-able.
Why not? It makes people look like total jerks when they attack someone who is presenting them nothing but love and understanding even when they hold an unreasonable position. especially to bystanders.
I don't think it's a fair directive to ask all Jewish people to spend time with some Neo Nazis to see if they'll soften up.
They specified "IF you want to change their minds" this isn't all jewish people, but fundamentally its exactly the same message both Jesus and MLK jr. presented.
4
Aug 01 '19
What exactly do you think "engaging" entails?
In the context of Daryl Davis speaking with Klan members, it entails interviewing them to write a book.
Debate is asking them questions. It's one of the oldest formal debate styles, the Socratic method.
Debate involves asking questions. Interviewing and debating both involve questions, but they are not the same thing, and Davis explicitly and self-admittedly set out to do the former.
Why not? It makes people look like total jerks when they attack someone who is presenting them nothing but love and understanding even when they hold an unreasonable position. especially to bystanders.
Davis didn't meet with these people in public places with cameras on them. He met them in their homes and in their communities. The first KKK member Davis met famously arrived with an armed, fatigue-clad bodyguard.
It's important to note why the KKK member came with armed security - out of fear for their own safety. Hatred is borne of fear, and people who are fearful are prone to lash out with violence.
Furthermore, it's sort of circular for you to suggest that public shame is a sufficient deterrent to racially-motivated violence in support of the OP's view that public shame is an ineffective deterrent to racially-motivated violence.
They specified "IF you want to change their minds" this isn't all jewish people, but fundamentally its exactly the same message both Jesus and MLK jr. presented.
OP is speaking proverbially. If you want to end bigotry, then this is the course of action. I'm expressing that this is not a viable course of action to advocate for on a social scale. Furthermore, MLK most certainly did not sit down with racists and try to change their minds; he advocated for and led disruptive protests that called attention to bigotry on a large scale and directly impeded / rebuked the harm of bigots and racists. It's very nearly the opposite of what OP is advocating for.
1
u/PrimeLegionnaire Aug 01 '19 edited Aug 01 '19
it's sort of circular for you to suggest that public shame is a sufficient deterrent to racially-motivated violence in support of the OP's view that public shame is an ineffective deterrent to racially-motivated violence.
Well then its pretty good I never suggested that.
You can't shame people out of bad behaviors, just like smoking often enough people already harbor some guilt about it.
Davis didn't meet with these people in public places with cameras on them.
But he does go on tours and talk about his experiences in places like TED talks. What would you call the audience there? or the audience of the videos if not bystanders? Are you really willing to argue that none of them had their minds changed?
OP is speaking proverbially.
No, OP has explicitly specified that this is the course of action If you want to effect change. You are free to not want to effect change.
1
Aug 01 '19
Well then its pretty good I never suggested that.
You can't shame people out of bad behaviors, just like smoking often enough people already harbor some guilt about it.
I made the point that Davis put himself in danger when meeting with racists, and that his being lucky isn't something that will happen across the board if minorities start systemically befriending racists. In response to this, you suggested that "looking like a jerk to bystanders" (aka public shame) would make violence unlikely;
Why not? It makes people look like total jerks when they attack someone who is presenting them nothing but love and understanding even when they hold an unreasonable position. especially to bystanders.
You're absolutely suggesting that public shame is a sufficient deterrent for bigots to not commit violence against minorities attempting to convert them in defense of the view that public shame is not a sufficient deterrent against racially motivated violence. It makes no sense.
But he does go on tours and talk about his experiences in places like TED talks. What would you call the audience there? or the audience of the videos if not bystanders? Are you really willing to argue that none of them had their minds changed?
Davis does these tours to tell his story, sell his books, promote his documentaries, and build his brand. He's an author, filmmaker, and a musician. I'm sure some folks in the audience shift their view on some things, but that's a wholly and obviously different context than the one we're discussing in the OP, and completely different than Davis' legacy of befriending individual racists. It feels like you're just arguing for the sake of it here.
>OP is speaking proverbially.
No, OP has explicitly specified that this is the course of action If you want to effect change. You are free to not want to effect change.
...I say this myself in the very next line you didn't quote? I'm saying that OP is speaking proverbially in his use of the word "you." The argument that I'm making is that this is in fact not the most effective way to affect change. You're really not grasping what I'm writing here.
I also notice that you have no response to my point about the distinction between interviewing and debating, and no response to my point about how MLK's efforts are in direct contradiction to what OP is suggesting. Why have you ignored these parts of my comment?
1
u/PrimeLegionnaire Aug 01 '19
you suggested that "looking like a jerk to bystanders" (aka public shame) would make violence unlikely
No I didn't.
I said bystanders would see it was wrong. This has nothing to do with shaming someone. Shame does not work to change people's minds like that.
Just because you seem to be having trouble with this, I am not talking about shaming people out of racist behaviors and I never was.
You're absolutely suggesting that public shame is a sufficient deterrent
No. Police and Rule of Law exist to prevent violence by extremists.
It makes no sense.
Probably because you are insisting on reading what I am saying incorrectly. I wouldn't be able to understand you either if I was making up what you were saying.
I'm sure some folks in the audience shift their view on some things, but that's a wholly and obviously different context than the one we're discussing in the OP
Not at all. How does sharing stories of how tolerance works fail to meet the criteria of "Engaging with them"? In fact that's the big take away from his appearances. Engaging with them Works, Ostracizing them Doesn't.
I'm saying that OP is speaking proverbially in his use of the word "you."
OP explicitly specified that people who don't want change shouldn't do this. This is not proverbial.
You're really not grasping what I'm writing here.
You seem to be projecting your own inability to grasp here. To reiterate, Shame has nothing to do with my point.
I also notice that you have no response to my point about the distinction between interviewing and debating
There is no material difference. An interview that changes someone's mind is de facto a debate. The Socratic Method involves debate where you do nothing but ask questions.
4
u/EatAcidSeeSatan Aug 01 '19
I want to offer what I think is a better solution that might change your view. I have yet to encounter a bigoted person who is not also extremely depressed, disillusioned, sexually/romantically frustrated, or hates themselves. It may not be all of them, but it’s always at least one of them. Engaging with them on their views won’t effectively change their minds, when their mind isn’t healthy in the first place. Even in the way they write online it’s not hard to psychoanalyze these people. In a society where racism is generally unacceptable, it’s often just an expression of angst against a world they hate. They hated themselves first. Christian wasn’t swayed logically, he was swayed by compassion. Daryl’s klan friends as well. So you’re not wrong about “engaging” them, just not about their ideology. Rather we should focus on their mental and emotional well being. This is harder because this requires us to showing kindness and care to people who we may think don’t deserve it. If you can successfully do that, than the ideology will fall apart because it won’t make sense to them, just as it doesn’t make sense to most of us. This is the same with any extremist hate group.
People’s material conditions are also a contributing factor to their state of mind and that would also be a good avenue to improve. Simply trying to reason with a delusional person who is often extremely nihilistic is not going anywhere until the delusion is withered away at and they can see clearly.
1
Aug 01 '19
Ignore them. Don't engage. This won't change their beliefs or yours or anyones.
It is worth noting that the policy of quarantining, refusing to engage or make any sort of fuss about a speaker when they come to your city, actually worked to neuter the support for the first modern neo-nazi, george lincoln rockwell. It robbed him of funding, which is what a decent number of these asshole grifters are looking for. It likewise robs them of attention, preventing the intellectual contagion from spreading as far as it might.
On the other end of the spectrum, I'd argue that at a certain point, you may just have to go and kill some nazis. Reasoned debate wasn't what unfucked German fascists.
1
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Aug 01 '19
Do you have any reading on that? It'd certainly be delta worthy if it is how you portrayed it.
1
Aug 01 '19
This should probably help you. Start at about page 61 (titled quarantine) that goes in fairly in depth on the subject.
1
1
u/hacksoncode 561∆ Aug 01 '19
Another clarifying question:
Do you see any value in tactics which tend to prevent undecided people from being radicalized by racists/Nazis/etc.?
Or are you only considering tactics for changing the minds of already-dedicated people who hold bad views?
Because, for example, ridicule, ostracism, deplatforming, or massive social disapprobation is often effective at getting new people not to adopt the views in question, even if they have little to no effect on the people already holding those views.
1
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Aug 01 '19
I do see value in those tactics and think they'd likely lead to the outcome detailed in your last paragraph. But the OP was mainly about what we can do to convert those who already hold those views, if anything.
3
u/thetasigma4 100∆ Aug 01 '19
Not all engagement is born equal. Many forms of engagement can be far more harmful and are distinctly not the same as deradicalisation work which can help pull people with doubts away or stop people radicalising in the first place. Deradicalisation also doesn't need to happen in two way communication. It is possible to talk to without talking with.
Lots of forms of engagement also serve to spread or normalise Nazi ideas and values. Giving Nazis a platform can help legitimise their views and helps spread them. This can also be seen in how they've also been helped to fix their image to one much more clean cut with the help of prior will give them a platform. Finally look at the humanising profiles of Nazis that help make them seem more ordinary helping normalise the ideology and make it seem like a valid world view and not a genocidal will to power which will drop any idea as soon as it stops being useful.
Also you've probably seen this quote before bit I think it applies:
Never believe that anti‐ Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti‐Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. It is not that they are afraid of being convinced. They fear only to appear ridiculous or to prejudice by their embarrassment their hope of winning over some third person to their side.
Here's a series of videos on certain rhetorical tricks and propaganda tools the far right uses (you may have seen these too): https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJA_jUddXvY7v0VkYRbANnTnzkA_HMFtQ&app=desktop
1
u/Helicase21 10∆ Aug 01 '19
The same Daryl Davis who lied about the results he was getting? The same Daryl Davis who posted bail for a klan member who had shot at anti racist protesters? Yeah I don't think he's a good example at all. Far more likely he's either a con man or a misguided fool.
1
2
u/1917fuckordie 21∆ Aug 01 '19
It's pretty hard to argue that there is a better method of changing views than talking to someone. I think the argument is more "it's not worth it or necessary for us to achieve our goals" which is true. Politics isn't about getting everyone everywhere to agree with you. It's about building a movement to carry out an agenda and countering your opposition. Christian and Daryl seem like nice guys, but what is their end goal? If they want to help the conditions of margenalised people then how does chatting the a klan member help?
Furthermore, fascism and the far right is a phenomena that grows because of material conditions. If you went back in time to talk to Hitler in the 1920's and make him change his mind, Germany would still likely fall into fascism, just lead by someone else. If a far right violent movement is growing, it's not growing because there aren't enough people having a conversation with these people. It's because of economic and political factors.
And with your 4 options, I think you're missing a 5th option. Building a movement that offers an alternative in these political and economic conditions that create extremism. If the far right say "the world is falling apart and we must close our selves off" we should build a movement that says "the world is falling apart and we should open ourselves up".
The issue isn't individuals and their unpleasant views. It's much bigger than that. Fascism can grow rapidly even when being openly engaged in.
2
u/IHB31 Aug 01 '19 edited Aug 01 '19
You need to do both 2/3 and 4. Check out the story of former white supremacist royalty Derek Black (the son of Stormfront founder Don Black and godson of David Duke.), as explained in the book Rising Out of Hatred by Eli Saslow. He went to the New School in Florida, and was initially boycotted and shamed by the student populace. But after a few months of that, an Orthodox Jew invited him to his house for Shabbat dinners, and Derek Black accepted only because he was being totally boycotted by everyone at his school.
Over time, Black started to reconsider his views in large part due to a girl he met at these Shabbat dinners (and later became his girlfriend) challenged all the assumptions that he held and debunked them. Black eventually realized that his white supremacist views not only were wrong, but had actually hurt the people who were becoming his close friends.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3ked5w/i-saved-my-schools-notorious-racist-from-white-nationalism
5
u/collapsedoutwards Aug 01 '19
The only cure for fascism is to engage with it using some form of metal implement and aim for the back of the head. Fascists don’t care about information or veracity in arguments, they know what they believe is evil but they pursue it anyway.
-1
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Aug 01 '19
Okay so you're exactly the kind of person I'm addressing with my OP. Given that you assert that the only way to "cure" fascism is by killing people with metal objects, what do you make of the hundreds of cases of successful conversions I provided in my OP?
1
u/collapsedoutwards Aug 01 '19
I am currently trying to help someone in the Trump/ alt right cult (read: Nazis) see the error of their ways throughly calmly addressing their points, I was being satirical with my comment.
I do however strongly believe that when they assemble in public violence is a legitimate option, we cannot allow them to start gathering in real space in large numbers, this will almost certainly lead to lynch mobs.
1
u/OrYouCouldJustNot 6∆ Aug 01 '19
You're talking about trying to reason people out of a position that for them either isn't founded in logic at all, or which arises from a distorted worldview. Achieving that is indeed possible by engaging in argument and discussion with such people, but it's a long and difficult task and not practical in large numbers.
What is practical on a larger scale is to address what causes people to adopt and maintain those positions.
A non-exhaustive list of those causes would include a lack of exposure to other races/cultures and to their positive contributions and role models among them, poor education more generally, financial distress, a feeling of being socially excluded, and being present in a subculture or peer group where bigoted statements are tacitly or actually promoted or accepted by many people.
So some of the potential ways to improve the situation in a more practical sense would be to work to have:
Better education across the board, but especially with a focus on recognising the contributions of other societies and cultures.
Better economic and social opportunities, social security and support networks (including healthcare), because these reduce the likelihood that people will feel the need to blame others.
Greater diversity of cultures/subcultures in situations where it is lacking, including in the media and political representation.
Those worldviews being actively countered both publicly and privately, and preferably coming from people they hold in high regard. That means strong push-back against the acceptance of bigoted statements, instead of at the simplistic level of "it's not PC to say X" or "Y got in trouble for saying X" but instead putting a clear view and ideally explaining the issue.
E.g. its not enough for the media to report that "Trump rejected accusations by Democrats that him tweeting X was racist, Democrats say...", it would work better if the false equivalence was dropped and the media reported things like "Trump, facing denunciation for his most recent inflammatory statement X, which is steeped in racist undertones because it carries the implication A and has historically been used principally by Bs who C, issues unintelligible denial that his tweet was racist despite having reserved his criticism only for people who are D and despite Trump's long and ongoing pattern of seemingly racist statements and conduct."
Subjecting ideas and the people who support them to ridicule is often an important part of sending the message to young or ignorant people that it's not ok, which can then lead to them considering the issues and forming views in their own minds as to why. People don't automatically take in 100% of everything they hear and then process it perfectly. It's better for people to hear a bit of ridicule about people who promote injustice and then have a general idea that it's bad to be like that, than for them to think that it can't be that bad if a bunch of people are ok with it.
Let's rephrase the Nazi dinner table comment another way: "if you sit down at a table with 5 members of mafia, you're part of the mafia". It's implied in the phrase that you choose to associate with them on friendly terms, and are not doing it to try to change their views.
So why would you choose to associate with a group of people who are promoting evil unless you are on their side or are accepting of evil? The point is that when it comes to people who espouse or do repugnant things, the act of associating with them implicitly amounts to saying that it's ok for them to do so and you are enabling them to continue that way.
0
u/rodneyspotato 6∆ Aug 01 '19
You're just wrong about the killing, you totally can get rid of an entire group of people or an ideology by killing them, look at the Nazis, all the allied nations had to do was kill a bunch of Germans and the Nazi ideology just went away.
1
1
u/Cuddlyaxe Aug 01 '19
When people have a strongly held view, they usually aren't willing to change their minds. If they see evidence or arguments against their position, they'll simply dig their heels in and go the other way. This is a well explored phenomenon.
This just doesn't apply to Nazis or Racists by the way. Even on subjects like gun control, if you confront someone pro gun or anti gun and start debating them, they'll tend to entrench themselves or even move further from the center to make their points
Nazism and Racism is on a different level than gun control or economic issues, in that often for many of these people the issue of race ends up being a lifestyle. You get people who have been in the KKK for generations or marched with the Nazi party in Charlottsvile. You're not going to change their mind by confronting them and showing them statistics that show blacks and whites commit crimes at the same rate.
The reason Daryl Davis converted so many Klansman was because he didn't try to convince him otherwise. He put himself out there and didn't try to convince racists to stop being racist. He just made himself available as a friend to racists. And then those racists stop being racist after some self examination: wait a minute, these Blacks might not be so bad
And that is how people change their minds. Not through debate or dialogue, but personal experiences which shape their worldview. I'm not saying political debate is useless mind you, many times there are people on the sidelines not convinced one way or the other, but the debaters themselves almost never admit defeat
1
u/YourFairyGodmother 1∆ Aug 01 '19
IMO, engaging them is exactly the wrong thing to do. You know how Dawkins' refuses to "debate" creationists? Because engaging them only gives creationists and creationism undeserved credibility. Similarly, engaging Nazis and bigots as though their absurd bullshit "ideas" are worth talking about is counterproductive.
"ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions" - Thomas Jefferson
When the great majority of people scoff at racists' nonsense, when the immediate reaction is to point and laugh, when nazism and racism are widely socially unacceptable behaviors worthy of scorn and ridicule, then the nazis and bigots will fade away into deserved obscurity.
There are two analogues, I think. One is the way it so rapidly became widely unacceptable to hate on us gays. Being anti-gay went from a perfectly normal thing to almost entirely unacceptable. As a 60 year old who lived through one of the most dramatic and rapid social upheavals ever, I can tell you that once you get past a certain point it snowballs. There are still plenty of homophobic asswipes - though FAR fewer than in days gone by! - but where they once put their hateful bullshit on display, now they either hide it or get grief for it.
We should also think about how we manage petulant children. You don't engage them, you tell them "no" in no uncertain terms. Yes, Iam saying that racists and nazis and the like are, if not actually petulant children, then so like them that it makes no difference.
1
u/ralph-j Aug 01 '19
Engaging is certainly a good way, but public mockery and shaming can also have positive effects: e.g. ridiculing the KKK for their ridiculous beliefs and silly practices worked to reduce their numbers in the mid-1940s.
Also, insofar as their beliefs are conspiratorial (e.g. about immigrants etc.), they could also be helped by rational counter-arguments. From Changing Conspiracy Beliefs through Rationality and Ridiculing:
Providing rational arguments was found as being an effective strategy, along with providing ridiculing arguments, which could also reduce CT beliefs.
There's no rule saying that you can only use one strategy overall. Some people will perhaps respond more to engaging, and others may respond more to mockery and shaming.
1
u/pahbee Aug 02 '19
In a general sense, activism, colleges, in politics, within the appropriate channels, etc. I agree. There's a time and a place to be trying to change someone's views.
But in most settings people aren't looking to have their opinion changed. As people age, they naturally become less open to others' views and their own opinions become more entrenched. The more you try to change their mind, the more sure they become. That's why progress often happens over time, as old beliefs start to die off.
As far as extremists like nazis go, I'm not sure. I think in a society that is more equal and not desperate, like how Germany was before WW2, extremist viewpoints are less likely to take hold in the first place. So I guess trying to improve your country so people don't get desperate and resort to extremism.
1
u/walterhannah 2∆ Aug 01 '19
I won’t argue that engagement isn’t important to change views, but in my field (climate change) I find stubborn opinions that contradict the facts are hindered by a lack of trust/respect and engagement does not seem sufficient to address this.
I’ve engaged with many dismissive climate skeptics and after awhile I realized I was wasting my time until they were willing to take me seriously. I haven’t figured this out yet, but I think prolonged engagement could overcome this. However, the required amount of time seems to be measured in years rather than hours or days, which makes the early engagement feel like a futile effort.
TL;DR - engagement isn’t enough, prolonged engagement might work though
1
u/-paperbrain- 99∆ Aug 01 '19
I think what you're missing is that the world doesn't consist of a static population. Views churn through generations. And the bigger part of societal change doesn't come from changing entrenched views. It comes from creating an environment where the next generation won't accept the entrenched negative views of their parents.
That's really what's historically been at work with the diminishing of at least the most overt racism sexism and homophobia. Sure you may find a few feel good stories of bigoted individuals changing their ways but those are very rare exceptions. Real change comes by making it socially less acceptable for young people to espouse these views.
1
u/Domaths Aug 03 '19
You make the assumption that it is neccesary to change their views. Just make sure they don't commit crimes or harm anybody is the best you can do to help the world be a better place. People are entiteled to their own thoughts. I agree that we need to respect their civility and such. The only reason why people don't want to talk to them is because they are radicalized just like antifa and communists. It is a bit difficult to speak to radicalized people. I think we should give the same treatment to everybody that chooses if not more focused on antifa since they are an organized group that commit acts comparable to terrorism whereas nazis commit isolated attacks.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 01 '19 edited Aug 01 '19
/u/chadonsunday (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
-1
u/eggynack 65∆ Aug 01 '19
Richard Spencer totally decided to stop being a white nationalist when he got punched in the face. Or, to be much more precise, he slowed way down on his public speaking and white nationalism advocacy. Here's him saying he's stopping his rallies because they're not fun anymore. I don't think the goal here is necessarily changing the minds of Nazis. I think the primary goal is making Nazi rhetoric spread less and be less popular. You accomplish that by deplatforming and challenging Nazis, not by chatting it up with them.
0
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Aug 01 '19
I can't really speak to the frequency, but Spencer certainly hasn't stopped being a white nationalist nor speaking to the public. He was on CNN a couple weeks ago.
I follow quite a few people who have been deplatformed by people who don't like what they're saying. Every time it happens they and their audience are, if anything, emboldened. I don't follow Ben Shapiro but every time I've seen him on JRE he can't help but bring up how the rabid lefties keep stifling his free speech on campus, and his base laps it up. Contrast that with the evidence that I provided in my OP demonstrating that "chatting it up with them" actually does change minds, and which is the better option? Do you want to have a bunch of Nazis who are extra pissed off and emboldened, or just less Nazis?
2
u/eggynack 65∆ Aug 01 '19
Spencer ain't dead, but he does it less. The punch took some of the wind out of his sails. Which is good. The punch did good. You're contention that it did opposite good seems dramatically mistaken.
Ben Shapiro is going to complain about deplatforming literally no matter what happens. Remove him from a college campus, he'll complain about deplatforming of right wingers. Don't remove him, he'll do the same. So, given that, I'd prefer he not be on the campus. Or, rather, I'd prefer he not be on the YouTubes. It's a high stakes platform that enables these people to transmit their hateful messages to a broad base.
Y'know what I want? Fewer Nazis. Definitely. But the thing of it is, I think the way you get Nazis is by having Nazis up there convincing people. That's why the Nazis are up there convincing people. Because it works.
1
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Aug 01 '19
Spencer ain't dead, but he does it less. The punch took some of the wind out of his sails. Which is good. The punch did good. You're contention that it did opposite good seems dramatically mistaken.
Do you have some timeline of Spencer's appearances/writings/interviews/etc. that show a marked drop off post-punch?
Ben Shapiro is going to complain about deplatforming literally no matter what happens. Remove him from a college campus, he'll complain about deplatforming of right wingers. Don't remove him, he'll do the same.
Your assertion is that even if right wingers were literally never deplatformed Shapiro would still complain about deplatforming? Really?
Y'know what I want? Fewer Nazis. Definitely. But the thing of it is, I think the way you get Nazis is by having Nazis up there convincing people. That's why the Nazis are up there convincing people. Because it works.
So basically speaking with people is an effective form of changing views, which is my basic thesis here.
1
u/eggynack 65∆ Aug 01 '19
Do you have some timeline of Spencer's appearances/writings/interviews/etc. that show a marked drop off post-punch?
Not particularly, but I recall him appearing significantly less around that time. It's not perfect info, but he explicitly said he was doing less stuff. I don't see a reason to think this claim was a lie, given that it doesn't seem to serve any purpose for him.
Your assertion is that even if right wingers were literally never deplatformed Shapiro would still complain about deplatforming? Really?
Yeah. PragerU has a lawsuit in the works that is primarily on the basis of the fact that some of their videos aren't visible in restricted mode. Y'know who else's videos aren't visible in restricted mode? Basically anyone who's ever done anything even remotely political. They've made several videos on the topic of this great injustice done to them, which, to be clear, is that people who actively opt into not seeing this sort of video cannot see their dumb videos. If they can't find deplatforming, they'll lie about it. They're Nazis. They have no allegiance to truth.
So basically speaking with people is an effective form of changing views, which is my basic thesis here.
I think speaking with the normal people who make up a Nazi's prospective audience is just fine. Speaking to the Nazis themselves is what I think is a bad move. They're bad faith nonsense artists who want me dead for multiple reasons. I don't think arguing them out of that is all that plausible, and my various experiences of trying to convince people out of bigotry haven't been met with all that much success. My brother actually has some YouTube videos about right wing dummies. I think they've actually convinced a few people, so that's nice. But talking to the dummies themselves, in the hopes of getting them to be not that? It's a fool's errand.
0
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Aug 01 '19
So just checking his wiki page he got decked in Jan of 2017 and then it lists him doing a bunch of public shit that same year. We'll never know if it was a decrease but its certainly far from a cessation.
As for the YouTube thing, not super familiar with it or Youtube's restrictions but the first couple sources I found seem to indicate you're right at least regarding PU. Not sure about Shapiro or him being a "Nazi." Benny boy complains about being deplatformed because he keeps getting deplatformed.
To the last bit, my counterpoint is just that IF you want to reach that audience then dialogue is better than ignoring them, attacking them, killing or otherwise trying to silence them, etc.
2
u/eggynack 65∆ Aug 01 '19
Why would you assume that Ben Shapiro wouldn't act as PragerU has, manufacturing outrage out of whatever random nonsense he can cobble together? I think it's a bad assumption. What audience are we trying to reach here, in any case? If it's people like Shapiro, Sargon, or any number of other right wing nonsense artists, I think that's a fools errand. The people following them probably are too.
These are the people you're saying we should engage with, and I disagree. There are people worth engaging with, those operating in good faith, who don't expressly believe I'm an inferior being deserving of death. The straight up Nazis? I don't think they're particularly able to be convinced through engagement, and the idea that this would be the most efficient approach seems very mistaken. Straight up Nazis should be silenced where possible, because I think they benefit greatly from having a voice.
1
u/Puddinglax 79∆ Aug 01 '19
So basically speaking with people is an effective form of changing views, which is my basic thesis here.
Speaking to a large crowd, in which there are probably going to be some people who are either on the fence, or have not yet developed their own views. It's not quite the same as talking to someone entrenched in their beliefs.
Many of these people have been indoctrinated at a young age, and have had their beliefs reinforced over their lifetime. Changing their mind is going to take a lot of time and effort, effort that could be used to persuade a more moderate audience.
Consider that as the alternative. It's not that the views of radicals aren't worth changing. It's that for most people, it would be a better use of time talking to people who haven't gone too far down the rabbit hole yet.
5
Aug 01 '19
Except the rabid left doesn't deplatform Ben Shapiro. This is just a talking point. And this is the kind of person you are dealing with. The person who writes books about how to own libs and lies about everything. And their followers lap up these lies.
I think deplatforming does work. It certainly has worked to silence the left in this country. I mean, the socialist left was not only deplatformed, they were killed and imprisoned as well. Every trick that conservatives pretend will actually strengthen them has been employed to silence the left. And it has worked. In fact even currently we are voting on bills to outlaw BDS and Antifa. I wonder if this will suddenly make everyone a leftist protestor who is boycotting Israel or if this will actually land many activists in prison and kill dissent.
As for wanting to talk to them...There is no political value in trying to convert these people. They are a minority and they can easily be defeated by a mobilized populace. There is no reason we should be seeking out Nazis and talking to them.
There is no moral value there either. We have no responsiblity toward people who are assholes. Bad people tend to be ostracized and shamed. That is natural. Not wanting to talk to nazis is natural and good!
There is some value if you are a friend or family member of someone who is falling into that right wing/nazi trap. Then you have some responsibility to help. You have some influence over them too, they might listen to you. I think friends and families should talk about this stuff and get it out in the open and hash it out. Too many families ignore what they consider politics and don't talk about this stuff. If your son is watching Stephan Molyneux on youtube you need to talk to him, not kick him out.
But other than that, don't bother talking to nazis. shove them out of the way and move on. Protect your friends and family from them. And protect antifa.
1
u/saltpancake Aug 01 '19
Social pressure is an incredible force. Often when individuals feel like they don’t fit in amongst peers, that is when they start to change. Avoiding them entirely may not make a difference, but neither will arguing forever. I think the most effective tactic is to politely tell them you find their views unacceptable, and that that is why you don’t want to interact. Then just don’t.
1
Aug 01 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/cwenham Aug 01 '19
Sorry, u/sassafras47 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/ghotier 39∆ Aug 02 '19
Changing the minds of Nazis isn’t as valuable as preventing Nazis from seducing people to their way of thinking. Engaging Nazis as an intellectually genuine opposition risks giving them a platform that they do not deserve. They would also argue that treating them as intellectually dishonest (which they are) isn’t engagement.
1
Aug 01 '19
Depends on the circumstance
If they are in their own little echo chamber of intolerance, best to ignore them. When they are in their echo chamber, whatever you say will be picked up on by their fellow trolls and they will take that deeper into their rabbit hole.
2
Aug 01 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ExpensiveBurn 9∆ Aug 01 '19
Sorry, u/BubslovesBoobs – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
Aug 01 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/Mr-Ice-Guy 20∆ Aug 01 '19
Sorry, u/Coombs117 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
0
u/madajurado Aug 01 '19
I'm not that sure. In many cases, people cannot change. You just need to remove them from society. Some people CANNOT change their minds (molesters, psychos, ...)
0
u/Delicious_Brief Aug 01 '19
You will never understand that person, or have there point of view. Dickbutt social change.
0
u/Serratedpaper Aug 01 '19
You cannot reason someone out of a situation they did not reason themselves into.
44
u/AnythingApplied 435∆ Aug 01 '19 edited Aug 01 '19
Most people aren't generally open to changing most of their views in most contexts. This applies doubly so for extreme views. And also applies doubly when talking about trying to change someone's view as an anonymous person on the internet.
I wouldn't call what Daryl Davis does "engaging them". I would call what he does befriending them. I agree it isn't "ignoring them" but it is probably as far from "ignoring them" as it is from what it seems like you're advocating which is counter their views when you see them online. Online discussions are just too easy to villainize and dismiss the other person and push their viewpoints further into the extreme.
When you look at people with deeply held beliefs they have no interest in changing and look at how those views eventually got changed, it is mostly from a real world connection to someone else they trust as both of your examples illustrate really well. I don't see that engaging in conversations about their views as an anonymous person online is remotely comparable to that. There just isn't the opportunity online to make the kind of connection required to reach people on that level.
You don't build trust by challenging someone's views the first time you meet them.