Lil'DigiOp
Member
Its the godgiven onus of every minority to improve situations. White majority has no participation requirements ever.
Its my fault y'all came out in hoods, I shouldn't call you racist because it may make you burn a cross in anger.
Vox: Research says there are ways to reduce racism. Calling people racist isnt one.
- Thread starter Croatoan
- Start date
- Status
Its the godgiven onus of every minority to improve situations. White majority has no participation requirements ever.
Its my fault y'all came out in hoods, I shouldn't call you racist because it may make you burn a cross in anger.
PlayALLtheGames
Banned
Most racist people will not admit they're racist because they don't think they are, so it's a non-starter for a conversation.
Primary goal should be to elect people who pass legislation to reduce systemic racism and discrimination. If you want to engage in conversations with racists to change their mind, knock yourself out.
The racists can continue to be racist and continue to cry about things changing. Let them. We do not need their approval nor understanding to make change happen.
Man that didn't work out at all like you'd planned, did it
For you, this is an intellectual exercise.
For marginalized people, this is their goddamn life.
This is basic psychology. People get defensive when they feel like they're being attacked. It applies to arguments about any subject, even video games, not just racism. It's not anyone's obligation to engage people in this manner, but if you actually want to change someone's mind then it's the most effective approach.
Abstract
Existing research depicts intergroup prejudices as deeply ingrained, requiring intense intervention to lastingly reduce. Here, we show that a single approximately 10-minute conversation encouraging actively taking the perspective of others can markedly reduce prejudice for at least 3 months. We illustrate this potential with a door-to-door canvassing intervention in South Florida targeting antitransgender prejudice. Despite declines in homophobia, transphobia remains pervasive. For the intervention, 56 canvassers went door to door encouraging active perspective-taking with 501 voters at voters doorsteps. A randomized trial found that these conversations substantially reduced transphobia, with decreases greater than Americans average decrease in homophobia from 1998 to 2012. These effects persisted for 3 months, and both transgender and nontransgender canvassers were effective. The intervention also increased support for a nondiscrimination law, even after exposing voters to counterarguments.
Existing research depicts intergroup prejudices as deeply ingrained, requiring intense intervention to lastingly reduce. Here, we show that a single approximately 10-minute conversation encouraging actively taking the perspective of others can markedly reduce prejudice for at least 3 months. We illustrate this potential with a door-to-door canvassing intervention in South Florida targeting antitransgender prejudice. Despite declines in homophobia, transphobia remains pervasive. For the intervention, 56 canvassers went door to door encouraging active perspective-taking with 501 voters at voters doorsteps. A randomized trial found that these conversations substantially reduced transphobia, with decreases greater than Americans average decrease in homophobia from 1998 to 2012. These effects persisted for 3 months, and both transgender and nontransgender canvassers were effective. The intervention also increased support for a nondiscrimination law, even after exposing voters to counterarguments.
BrutishMrFish
Member
Research also says that educating people with facts will further entrench them in their beliefs (the backfire effect). It also means that online arguments are futile, no matter how many sources people have.
One thing that might get people to change is a dispassionate presentation of official-looking graphs and charts followed by positive reinforcement (see here), but that assumes that the people being talked to won't have their old views reinforced again by their friends, families, communities, and the internet.
The only options are incredibly inefficient at best, so it's not simple at all.
Croatoan
They/Them A-10 Warthog
TLDR: My family voted for trump despite my beliefs and I still love them. I then took a jab at the hyperbole (The Rise of Nazi America stuff) and how millennials tend to not take loss well.
Pai Pai Master
Banned
An ego is a pretty precious thing to keep intact when you have to go your entire life constantly bombarded by reminders that society considers you to be sub-human.
Edit: Seeya!
"Make America White Again"
Mammoth Jones
Member
It's not my job to help improve a racist piece of shit.
Yep, this is my creed as well. If the shoe fits, wear it. I don't care if being confronted about it puts you on the defensive. You SHOULD be on the defensive going on with shit like that
okay, so leaving aside something rote like abortion or something trivial (as in having little to no impact on people against it) like gay marriage, what on the docket of obama's agenda was so critical to the people who voted against him that it matches up with the racist rhetoric of the trump campaign? i'm not saying people didn't have things to complain about, i'm saying that trying to paint the two as equal is fucking absurd.
n00bsauce87
Member
We are only here because the author made a claim and his "facts" were based on conversations with researchers. There was no studies to back up his claim. So as far as we know, this could be a false equivalency (which most people believe).
The skeleton for the study is there, they can just do it. This thread is based on speculation from the writer at best.
EatinOlives
Member
So could your arguments not be in part motivated by one's (not you specifically, just anyone's) inherent desire to defend their family? I'd say there's a nonzero chance there's that element involved.
Kill Your Masters
Member
Whats funny (sad), this exact sentence is what got Trump so many supporters. But suddenly its not ok anymore to "just call it like it is".
yanipheonu
Member
Hate the racism not the racist.
Racists are stupid ignorant people who, despite their flaws, are irrevocably people.
Racism is an indefensible and illogical relic of a more ignorant time that really can't sustain a democracy.
I just find racists foolish, and if they commit crimes, criminals. But they're still people.
Racists are stupid ignorant people who, despite their flaws, are irrevocably people.
Racism is an indefensible and illogical relic of a more ignorant time that really can't sustain a democracy.
I just find racists foolish, and if they commit crimes, criminals. But they're still people.
Frankly I still think an impassioned movement from liberals has been enough to beat out this way of thinking in terms of raw numbers, like in 2008.
The world will change with or without these people so if we stay strong they can change their way of thinking or fuck off. I don't believe in coddling. All it does is weaken our message.
HarryDemeanor
Member
True. The Internet has a huge influence on kids. Not sure how to solve that problem.
TheLaughingStock
Member
We've already seen the most effective way from mid 1950s to the late 1960s. You don't need to coddle racists. Call them out, make them uncomfortable, and tilt various laws in your favor.
Scientist Supreme!
Banned
All that needs be said but cowards will continue to be cowards.
Pai Pai Master
Banned
Well, he was constantly fucking lying to them so really it's just "I like trump speech"
Discotheque
Banned
It's a sad truth that will have to be taken into account soon.
A lot of racists will have to be coddled now in order to hopefully sway them away from those ingrained views
A lot of racists will have to be coddled now in order to hopefully sway them away from those ingrained views
In the last few weeks alone I've had three conversations with separate people who were spouting racist views.
As a result of engaging with them with civil but stern conversation, using citations, and probing them to ask questions about their beliefs, all three rescinded a substantial portion of their racist opinion.
Example: one person was calling /all/ Muslims "filthy, dangerous, cult members". After our exhange he admitted to generalizing.
One person did the same, and even went as far as to thank those of us who engaged with her this way for "allowing her to see Muslim people in a new light".
It /can/ work. And I feel it's our obligation to teach these people when we can.
(Of course, there are extreme examples that require different responses, but hateful exchanges will almost never be productive long term.)
As a result of engaging with them with civil but stern conversation, using citations, and probing them to ask questions about their beliefs, all three rescinded a substantial portion of their racist opinion.
Example: one person was calling /all/ Muslims "filthy, dangerous, cult members". After our exhange he admitted to generalizing.
One person did the same, and even went as far as to thank those of us who engaged with her this way for "allowing her to see Muslim people in a new light".
It /can/ work. And I feel it's our obligation to teach these people when we can.
(Of course, there are extreme examples that require different responses, but hateful exchanges will almost never be productive long term.)
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
I have to say I don't think we'd be having these conversations about how to reach racists and being told to suck it up for the greater good had Clinton won. People only care now because the team lost. People are considering how to get the white vote because the tip meant losing, and the first thing to come to mind isn't "we didn't do a good enough job reaching out" it's "minorities were too mean."
Like I've said before, the people looking to point fingers down need to pick up some weight in their own communities and families.
Even when you specifically target racist behavior (what you did was racists vs you are a racist) and explain to people the impact it has on you regardless of their intent, people still get defensive as if you were calling them a racist. White fragility is too strong. This will continue to be the case because America is ignorant to all the nuances of racism. most think it's a black and white binary; you're either a Klan member or a upstanding completely not racist citizen who doesn't have a racist bone in their body. when you call out racist behavior, no matter how overt and regardless if you call their intentions into the matter, people will still take it to mean you are calling them racists, everytime.
CharminUltra
Member
Poor racists.
Puck Beaverton
Banned
I really don't think "progressivism is inevitable" is the right way to think about things.
FriedConsole
Banned
I think some white liberals don't want people with racist ideas to change. They enjoy making fun of them too much. They get to enjoy feeling superior without having any repercussions minorities do.
Croatoan
They/Them A-10 Warthog
Why does it need to match up with the rhetoric? Only stormfront assholes voted for trump because of his rhetoric. The rest want to see republican policies no matter the cost.
Stuff like the death of fiscal conservatism,
Unfounded
Here is the problem with this:
If someone decides that racist ideas are acceptable, not because they support them, but because they think there are more important issues, I don't call them racist. I disagree very strongly with them and I tell them why. But the SECOND I call the racist ideas they decided to ignore or deem acceptable racist they IMMEDIATLY freak out about me calling them racists. This is the deal breaker. People no only don't want to be called racists, they also don't want anything they like or support to be called racist or connected to racism in any way.
I mustn't call many of Trumps positions racist because people who voted for Trump will feel attacked because they figure I just called them racists making it all but impossible to actually call racist ideologies racist, helping in turn to further normalize and legitimize them as valid political ideas.
If someone decides that racist ideas are acceptable, not because they support them, but because they think there are more important issues, I don't call them racist. I disagree very strongly with them and I tell them why. But the SECOND I call the racist ideas they decided to ignore or deem acceptable racist they IMMEDIATLY freak out about me calling them racists. This is the deal breaker. People no only don't want to be called racists, they also don't want anything they like or support to be called racist or connected to racism in any way.
I mustn't call many of Trumps positions racist because people who voted for Trump will feel attacked because they figure I just called them racists making it all but impossible to actually call racist ideologies racist, helping in turn to further normalize and legitimize them as valid political ideas.
Vermillion
Banned
I understand that it's difficult not to call people out. I know it's frustrating when people don't listen. But do you know what I see?
Through all of these words, I haven't seen a single person say "this article is wrong because this method is more effective." It's just "stop telling us to coddle racists" or "we've been educating people."
I understand the anger. And here's the thing - regardless of who is in the wrong, if our goal is to *make change*, we know what is effective and what isn't.
It doesn't normalize them if your goal is change. Does it suck that people can't hear that certain ideas are racist? For sure. But if you dismantle the idea itself, without a catch-all term (accurate be it as it may), you make allies and move the ball forward.
Through all of these words, I haven't seen a single person say "this article is wrong because this method is more effective." It's just "stop telling us to coddle racists" or "we've been educating people."
I understand the anger. And here's the thing - regardless of who is in the wrong, if our goal is to *make change*, we know what is effective and what isn't.
It doesn't normalize them if your goal is change. Does it suck that people can't hear that certain ideas are racist? For sure. But if you dismantle the idea itself, without a catch-all term (accurate be it as it may), you make allies and move the ball forward.
Have some personal experience with this and here is the biggest thing I've noticed. This works primarily on "situational racists" and the "diet racist". Those with deep levels of racism are a different matter. You can change them but I dont know if its worth the effort.
However situation/diet racists are FAR more prevalent. Their views are primarily based on media and limited exposure which is much easier to work with. A big problem however is many people have a hard time talking about these emotionally charged issues without their own energy, etc creating some level of "tension" which will create resistance in the listeners ear conscious or unconsciously (you cant fake this).
How many folks can actually try and understand and "sympathize" with a racist in order to generate open verbal and non verbal communication,and maintain that "trust" factor overtime in order to have that person be open enough for change?
Now if the person is open to change on their own on some level (which you can find out through, cautiously asking certain questions and watching their non verbal communication and listening to their dialog), than that is much easier to deal with. If they are not consciously open to change most people dont have the communications skills to work through that.
However situation/diet racists are FAR more prevalent. Their views are primarily based on media and limited exposure which is much easier to work with. A big problem however is many people have a hard time talking about these emotionally charged issues without their own energy, etc creating some level of "tension" which will create resistance in the listeners ear conscious or unconsciously (you cant fake this).
How many folks can actually try and understand and "sympathize" with a racist in order to generate open verbal and non verbal communication,and maintain that "trust" factor overtime in order to have that person be open enough for change?
Now if the person is open to change on their own on some level (which you can find out through, cautiously asking certain questions and watching their non verbal communication and listening to their dialog), than that is much easier to deal with. If they are not consciously open to change most people dont have the communications skills to work through that.
Captin Quacker
Member
How bout this
All you folks tellin us there's a better way go convince those people and the rest of us will go and motivate people to vote
Deal?
All you folks tellin us there's a better way go convince those people and the rest of us will go and motivate people to vote
Deal?
GARlockSpiral
Member
I'm not disagreeing she had a plan. But straight up telling people from Ohio that "we're going to put a lot of coal miners out of business", from a perspective of jobs would be like Trump creating a plan to create a registry for Muslims to get the minority vote - not very effective.
Furthermore, she didn't convey that plan very much and especially not to the people who needed to see it. Low-information voters don't care too much to research their candidates.
I agree with your post except for the bolded. This is not exclusive to America. At all.
Look at what's happening to Marijuana. Some trains you just can't stop. What is left of the baby boomers is fucking everyone else so once they're gone, the way is clear.
Primethius
Banned
I'm sure you can convince some racists to drop and/or change their beliefs.
But it's not a guaranteed thing and it probably has a far higher chance of failure then success (I for one have never been able to convince anyone to change racist beliefs).
So I'm not sure why I should continue to bother with the mental exertion and coddle these folks. That's a job for people far better then I. Fuck em and their beliefs.
But it's not a guaranteed thing and it probably has a far higher chance of failure then success (I for one have never been able to convince anyone to change racist beliefs).
So I'm not sure why I should continue to bother with the mental exertion and coddle these folks. That's a job for people far better then I. Fuck em and their beliefs.
Byakuya769
Member
Terribly hard-line approach. Have you ever considered that maybe the media should better tailor its presentation? Perhaps shows that don't go too far, and just have the characters talk about some of their minority friends who are "still good people." Leave it vague as to what "still" is in reference to.
Baby steps.
In all seriousness, we should be careful about shouting down people with racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic ideas or views that haven't gone full into hatred land. But, that's going to more of the responsibility of straight, white, cis men than anyone else. Are they up to the challenge? Because don't start tasking afflicted classes to better tolerate your crazy uncle and be more patient towards their argument that "ape in heels" wasn't actually racist.
PlayALLtheGames
Banned
Ah yes, statistic and studies. Let's recap:
-After Obama lowered taxes for most Americans a few years ago, polls showed most Republicans thought he raised them.
-Most Republicans think there has been no warming for decades; deny climate change.
-Most Republicans feel the economy has gotten worse since Obama took office; deny statistics that show otherwise because they "come from the government."
-Most Republicans think America's image abroad has become worse under Obama.
-Many Republicans STILL believe Obama was not born in America and his birth certificate is fake.
Point being: statistics and studies DO NOT MATTER. Ok? Evidence and numbers DO NOT MATTER. They don't fucking matter!
It's like you guys keep pretending that the racist, dumb, white trash in this country are completely open to having their minds changed on topics if they were just presented with evidence. Reality shows that to be false.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
They do, but one is the path of least resistance for most, and it shows.
UnemployedVillain
Member
I don't think this is exclusive to America, or even the biggest issue in America. It's one of the few countries where there actually is a NATIONAL dialogue about it. We still have other countries defending racists traditions are history, or trying to pretend that because their relationships and ideas about race aren't the same as in the US, it doesn't count.
It blows my mind how much better this plan is for helping coal communities than Trump's plan to save what's obviously a dying industry. Too bad it didn't get more attention. I voted for Hillary and I never heard about this.
lol at the guy's username being Seeya
orthodoxy1095
Banned
This seems to be mirroring the conversations we've had about how uniformed and selfish voters are. Yes, ideally, people wouldn't be like that. Ideally, in 2016, people would utilize the resources available to them to make determinations about candidate's policies. Ideally, in 2016, people wouldn't need politicians to literally come campaign in their town and would figure things out on their own. Ideally, in 2016, people would take responsibility and figure out their own way out of the backward beliefs they've bought into.
We don't live in an ideal world though. We have to work within the boundaries of the flawed world and human psyche we live in.
We don't live in an ideal world though. We have to work within the boundaries of the flawed world and human psyche we live in.
Vicetrailia
Banned
Threatened people do not change. Everyone saying "fuck racists" are feeling threatened too.
The article suggests person to person discussions, canvassing activism and more, citing that it's a long hard road reqiring multiple instances. So in other words, Activism is key.
This article isn't even talking about solving things through the internet.
The article suggests person to person discussions, canvassing activism and more, citing that it's a long hard road reqiring multiple instances. So in other words, Activism is key.
This article isn't even talking about solving things through the internet.
charlequin
Banned
This is a deeply inaccurate understanding of the problem here. Nobody on the left is advocating a position that everyone who voted this way is actively attempting to destroy minority populations out of personal animus and hatred. The problem is actually with what people are willing to accept. Someone thinks the economic parts of this platform will benefit them, fine; but when someone hears the (extremely prominent, extremely specific) calls for state violence against non-whites, if their reaction is anything shy of horror and revulsion, it really speaks to their character. Someone who's completely cool with the idea that to get their local factory reopened tens of millions of people will be brutally repressed and harmed by the state may not actively identify as a white supremacist but they're certainly fine with the idea that policies to help whites are worth any cost in non-white lives. You don't have to look much farther than people who are long-time Republicans who were too repulsed to vote Trump to see how low a bar this is.
Yeah, the academic def of racism (like many other academic word redefinitions) was essentially created to deal with one problem and has gone on to create another as it's slipped loose from its original context. In 1970, this formulation was an attempt to get away from the toxic frame common in the post-civil-rights era that racism was just a two-sided issue like any other, and therefore equivalently bad no matter who does it. Introducing institutional power to the mix was intended to capture the ways that (say) a white person shouting slurs is very different from a black person doing something similar, and in an academic context it was pretty successful at that.
The problem is that once it slips out of academia, it runs into the actual real-world usage that's developed for decades around the word. When someone has to say "well that's not racist because..." it turns a discussion of actual facts into a semantic one, where the one person is trying to win over the other to a completely different definition of what seems like a normal concept instead of discussing the actual topic. (See this exact thread, for example.)
💯💯💯
Minorities (especially black people) have been trying to peacefully educate these people for decades, if not longer. And it's gotten them murdered by cops for breathing and a president taking advice from a white supremacist.
Sure, I think it would be great for white people to do this. I do this. I don't think PoC should be forced to act different than people who don't have to worry about racism just to make a biased person less anxious. What I am about to say now isn't pointed at you. I am just using this post to say it.
It would certainly be nice if those of us who do reach out in a constructive manor with empathy toward poor whites and work on changing their perceptions, were not then seen by others on the left as coddlers and that we must be rascists too for reaching out. I see many people trying too push people like me out of the party just for trying to change opinions without name calling. I will also admit I'm not perfect and have namecalled people racists before and every time i did it always shut down the conversation.
- Status