>[speak without fear of being shamed or shunned] That's gobsmackingly wrong.
I have a novel counter-argument. From the perspective of self-defense, you are better off knowing the beliefs of your enemies. Presumably, beliefs that are shameful or shunnable make you an enemy. So, in a way we've managed to specify the world's first rational tribe-maker, based on grouping people according to the network of each person's real beliefs, and a willingness to act in the interests of those beliefs. And we may even have a special word for such beliefs, and call them "values".
My point is, we want people to be honest about their values, even when they are abhorrent to us, so we know who to hate, so we know who our real enemy is.
Now, if this sounds ridiculous to you, too, then I've convinced you: let's just be open about our beliefs and agree not to hate each other, not even for the racist shit. Literally everyone else in the whole world is racist and bigoted; why do we have to be different? You're not going to improve the melting pot by hating others, or yourself, not even if you're a white guy. I find myself annoyed at how conversation about racism has moved from something important, like the Holocaust, to something trivial, like whether or not Walmart carries Chanukah stuff. That's the other reason I think we should be both honest and accepting is because we've never tried it before and I think it could be really cool.
"Include all! White supremacists, non-white... If a few people (say non-white) feel uncomfortable and don't want to come, we're OK with that 100%!
Everyone should feel included! Racists, homophobes... Respect the beliefs of everyone, like believing there is a god, or that white people are superior, or believing you are being discriminated, or believing people will insult you or assault you at a whim for who you are, or believing you belong in a community full of racist assholes. It's OK 100%, all beliefs are equal, so we shouldn't discriminate people based on that!
That would be even worse than racism if you think about it."
The comparison to race still fails to make me think publicly denouncing a company in its whole because of the personal beliefs of one member is in any way justified.
People will never be homogeneous in their beliefs, and I think that's a good thing. But when you're unable to interact with another person in any way at all because of their private beliefs, you're being an idiot.
A person's beliefs do not define their contribution to society. Life has a lot of shades of grey, everyone has opinions that run counter to the current societal ideal. It's not ok to shun or denounce that person, all you're doing is spreading hate. It IS ok to speak out about what you believe. Do some good. Instead of getting angry about someone you've read about on the internet, go volunteer somewhere. Spread some love instead.
So we can never denounce hatred and bigotry without being hypocritical? We don't want to be hypocritical, right? So we should never denounce hatred and bigotry! Brilliant!
I am super, super tired of "if you denounce bigots that makes you just as bad as them."
Sure it goes both ways. That’s why a culture of taking offense to minor transgressions rather than giving people the benefit of the doubt is so detrimental. It goes back to that comic where someone asks about racism and the anti-racist tells them it’s emotional labor and to google it, then the white supremacist pulls out all his “research” and talks about white supremacy at length.
That person who can easily be influenced to be a white supremacist doesn’t feel accepted. I don’t really mind accepting people and opening up to them about my own flaws and ideological inconsistencies. Some people are going to fall into the wrong crowds - you can’t win everyone over, but blocking someone out because they’re superficially racist or they have “regressive” views or whatever else is a great way to get a confused person to be very sure about those views.
Compassion and solidarity should not be imposed without compassion, though. You don’t fight hate and oppression with more hate and oppression. When most people are annoyed with in-your-face militant attitudes it’s not because they don’t want to be nice. It’s because they don’t want to be bullied into following the dogma of the day. Of course you also have plain old racists, but putting them in the same bag as the big chunk of the population who just wants to get on with their day is bound to alienate quite a few people. Hence the blowback.
When someone explains that I cannot not be racist because I have pale skin (which does happen), well it just makes me want to punch them in the face. If we are supposed to all belong and accept each other regardless of our external appearance, then people making assumption about me based on it is just prejudice.
Disagreed. Any form of discrimination or ignorance should be challenged with more dialogue instead of less. Take whatever abhorrent ideological position you can think of and I will tell you that we should discuss it publicly, challenge it publicly, and destroy it intellectually in a public forum.
This has the advantages of:
* the person who held these thoughts outs themselves as a bigot as opposed to being a toxic agent
* a corpus of knowledge how to dispel/combat such positions is formed
* people who may be in the beginning stages of harboring such ideas are either discouraged due to strong public pushback or are helped to realize how wrong that position is
Serious philosophical question: can you verify someone's ideology, their internal mental state?
If not -- then this doesn't seem possible.
If yes -- then maybe.
.....
That said, from an editorial perspective, I find this very troubling.
More and more in America, we attempt to shame others based on what we perceive as their intentions and internally held beliefs and attitudes.
In objective reality, we can never fully know or understand what someone else is feeling, or what they intend. (At least as far as I am aware.)
Yet many of us still pretend we can, denouncing and shaming others because of their perceived intolerant or hateful beliefs. And, it's becoming socially acceptable, sometimes even encouraged... forgive me, but this whole idea is extraordinarily surreal.
EDIT:
What makes this doubly strange - if this were satire, it would be funny.
One thing I learned after 10 years of being vegetarian: antagonism is a a loosing strategy.
Shaming and tribalism doesn't help anybody, and is an arrogant view of the world.
You are probably some *ist right now, compared to a future world view.
Just because people have an opinion you know is unwise doesn't make them a bad person. They are like you. You are more like them than you think, but like them you have blind spots that prevent you from seeing it. Tolerance goes both way.
We all create suffering, at different scales and in different manners.
The idea is not to cater to racists, but just to make sure their believes does not translate to hurtful actions in the work place. If it doesn't, then it's ok, they probably tolerate stupid things on your part too.
If it does, then first, try to engage with them to make it stop.
He's pointing out the contradiction people hold in their heads, not saying that it's immoral. Many people believe in mutually incompatible ideas like this. I think it's because they get more satisfaction from fitting in with the crowd or experiencing the pleasure of reinforcing their beliefs than they do from trying to be right, which is emotionally unrewarding.
I think they should be honest and say "It's OK to discriminate against people based on the circumstances of their birth but I make an exception for race because my society told me I must." It sounds kind of stupid, but it is stupid. That's the cost of honesty.
What about the kids who don’t fit neatly into either category? You’ll be throwing a bunch of people into a group in an arbitrary fashion and then teaching them, perhaps just implicitly, that the group’s standards are “normal” and they are different. By saying this is a good thing you’re disrespecting a ton of people.
This is part of why a racist argument can’t be respectful: it’s fundamentally opposed to basic reality.
Is it possible that such an argument could be made honestly? Sure, by an ignorant nimrod. Does that make it respectful? No, part of respect in an argument is making sure you have a grasp of the basic facts before you spout off. Is it bad to block ignorant but honest nimrods in an attempt to block racist shitheads who have learned to cloak their arguments in polite-sounding language? No, for every ignorant nimrod there are a hundred racist shitheads, and you’re not going to educate the ignorant nimrods by giving equal footing to the racist shitheads.
"I'd rather they feel uncomfortable expressing that"
How is this useful though? Are you afraid to adopt those views? Are you saying ONLY others are in this danger of adopting those views (if so, why are you so special)?
At best you are making them stealthy and they are playing with you but you don't know, and at worse their beliefs are reinforced because they already hate people.
Built into what you're proposing is the assumption that everyone agrees about what constitutes hate, bigotry and racism. Which is my point: this works when convincing people who already agree with you, but not in today's violently polarized political climate.
Today, if I read an article describing someone as racist, that gets me no closer to understanding them as a person, because I have no idea what the article means by that, or if the author can be trusted to wield that word.
I realize one feels uneasy making long-winded arguments about something that seems so obvious, but that it is necessary is just a consequence of diversity of thought. There are actually people who disagree with your characterization of this order as racist or bigoted who are also sincere and thoughtful.
We absolutely can, do and should consider a person's beliefs completely in isolation with regard to the task they are doing. Being able to do that is fundamental to how decent society is expected to hold together.
Otherwise, how do you expect a Jew, an Atheist and a Hindu* to operate under the same legal system? No joke; clearly someone in that crowd is badly, badly wrong about some of the most important assumptions in their life. It doesn't affect their ability to contribute and live properly. If we can't separate out people's irrelevant beliefs, the logical implications are not pretty. The reason this works is because we accept that people can be completely, catastrophically wrong about one thing and still muddle through as well as the rest of us at everything else.
No, I am arguing that everyone can and should do all they can to condemn hatred. That regular people should make sure there are consequences for being a hateful bigot. And that people should not get tricked by "both-sides" bullshit, or empty appeals to "freedom of speech".
Don't be friends with a racist. Make sure they understand their views are not acceptable. Do your part today.
Not sure if you meant it this way, but the insight that I drew from your comment was:
When we think that either A or B are not super important beliefs, or we are observing from such a distance that the differences between A and B seem small, then we feel the people are narrow minded and prejudiced if they strongly hold on to their belief and are openly discriminatory against the other.
However, when we personally and strongly think that one of the beliefs is completely evil or unacceptable, then we feel that the distinction is justified and that it's okay to not just oppose it, but also feel confident enough to do so openly and with pride.
TLDR; It's much easier to be non-discriminatory if we (or our belief system) don't (doesn't) have any skin in the game.
That's such a transparent strawman. The point is that a judgement has merit solely based on its justification, not on its syntactic form.
I don't think you can justify prejudice against Jews. People who think they can often use epistemological frameworks I find, to be frank, stupid. At the end of the day, we can judge ideas based on their content, their meaning. The idea that this is equivalent to an irrational judgement, like one based on skin color, is what I am attacking here.
It’s a restatement of the first and most widely-known principle of the Unitarian Universalist Association [1]. I think that is why it resonates with many people.
Those people are then caught off-guard when they use the phrase and find themselves labeled “racist.”
I just don’t see how the vilification of a specific phrasing of a common sentiment moves us forward. To me it feels like playing power games with words.
If a person is a white supremacist, black supremacist, Indian supremacist, whatever, perhaps through working side-by-side towards common goals they can learn not only to fake non-discrimination but to adopt it as an ideology. If they're functionally equivalent to everyone else in their work I can't see a _reason_ to exclude them other than bigotry.
They're wrong, outside work I'm happy to address that head on; peace doesn't come through uncompromising segregation off people based on ideology.
Presumably you find Muslims, whose religious book demands they murder those who won't convert, to be anathema in your workplace?
Rather than it being demeaning to accommodate people with ideological differences it is essentially human and calls us to the highest standards of non-discrimination, IMO.
> Can you expand on this, explain the connection? In particular, why the former (belief) would influence the latter (behavior)?
It's not universally the case, to be sure. If you voice your belief that women are intellectually inferior, you will likely make them feel excluded. In general, there is a relationship between a person's beliefs and behaviors which I regard as self-evident.
> Edit: answer to your second question: I try to be inclusive, I don't believe in drawing lines, at least not when it comes to belief (only behavior).
People tend to act in accordance with their beliefs. I don't think I track your perspective. Do you really believe that, say, a person with white supremecist beliefs, again, as an extreme example, will generally act welcoming toward minorities? You seem to believe, well, as long as they don't explicitly disrespect someone, it's fine. But social behavior is a lot more subtle. People can tell if you hate them.
I have a novel counter-argument. From the perspective of self-defense, you are better off knowing the beliefs of your enemies. Presumably, beliefs that are shameful or shunnable make you an enemy. So, in a way we've managed to specify the world's first rational tribe-maker, based on grouping people according to the network of each person's real beliefs, and a willingness to act in the interests of those beliefs. And we may even have a special word for such beliefs, and call them "values".
My point is, we want people to be honest about their values, even when they are abhorrent to us, so we know who to hate, so we know who our real enemy is.
Now, if this sounds ridiculous to you, too, then I've convinced you: let's just be open about our beliefs and agree not to hate each other, not even for the racist shit. Literally everyone else in the whole world is racist and bigoted; why do we have to be different? You're not going to improve the melting pot by hating others, or yourself, not even if you're a white guy. I find myself annoyed at how conversation about racism has moved from something important, like the Holocaust, to something trivial, like whether or not Walmart carries Chanukah stuff. That's the other reason I think we should be both honest and accepting is because we've never tried it before and I think it could be really cool.
reply