Support NeoGAF

[Frozenprince]

For the fifty thousandth time.

Implicit bigotry, ignoring or accepting the fucked up awful things he said because it makes your situation better, is no better, nor different, to the way it impacts those effected by bigotry.

This line of reasoning is flawed from jump. You cannot divorce race or sexuality from Donald Trump's campaign when he himself made it a cornerstone of his campaign.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

I think that's just the inherent nature of voting for a candidate in a largely two-party system. On some level, it does "force" you into situations where someone will at some point say "eh, I guess I'll overlook that", no matter how terrible it is. Isn't that the argument that's used every time a 3rd party candidate is brought up?

some antiwar people vote for pro-war Democrats who routinely bomb other countries
some pro-choice people vote for a sexist Republican party
some people who support gay rights vote for a routinely homophobic Republican party
some anti-capitalists vote for pro-corporate Democrats

Democrats had one of the most popular proponents of stop and frisk front and center at their convention, while also having mothers of those slain by police violence on stage

Of course a lot of them didn't care about Trump's racism, because America being a white supremacist country allows them to not have to care. And while for a lot of us, his blatant racism/sexism should an obvious dealbreaker on a gut level, they're just using the same logic to overlook things the same way that everyone else does in favor of their preferred major party candidate. When you're forced to pick between only two people, the rationalizations start flying:

"he's just trolling"
"he doesn't really mean it"
"it's just PC culture out of control"

It's all BS, but it's the same BS that all human beings are prone to, and not something unique to Trump voters. Recognizing that is important, I think. And I'm not saying that the individual rationalizations are equivalent in all cases, but that the psychological motivation behind it is the same.

What I'm looking for a guess is an honest answer as to why their rationalizations are ok, but ours are not. This seems to be the position that a lot of people are taking and to be perfectly honest, if they would just say they care more about getting back these people's votes than the feelings of minorities, I'd be satisfied. Everything else is just posturing to appear caring but it's meaningless without action.

 

[call_kotaku]

You're wrong there, he did run on economic issues. The wall was about curbing illegal immigration and the thought they were taking American jobs. Getting rid of NAFTA and raising tariffs on China and penalizing American companies who close shop to set over seas... all economic. Tax cuts across the board, economic.

I think he's on the wrong side of ALL those issues, but he won the primaries because of it. He was anti-establishment, he had a catch phrase, and a stupid hat.

People actually have a pretty good ability to weed out bullshit, more than we give them credit for. People didn't really want a wall, they wanted border security, they don't want to ban muslims, they want to make sure terrorists aren't coming over, they want to know their job isn't getting shipped overseas. The rest of the crap was just noise.

But think about what you're doing here.

You're basically making rationalizations for all his core campaign goals to make them not sound like direct appeals to white supremacy, and you actually have to argue that "he didn't mean it that way and his supporters didn't interpret it that way" as if hate speech is just white ebonics. Previous Republicans ran on the platform you rationalized without including the racist parts and lost. Why do you feel like you have to do that much work to rationalize it?

Nobody is saying that white people aren't feeling threatened, or that there aren't real economic problems for all Americans including white ones, but the fact that Trump supporters didn't perceive previous appeals to them as genuine because they didn't specifically wrap it in white supremacist language is what minorities are telling you is the important takeaway here. Throwing us under the bus after you lost the election is basically "doing the right thing didn't help us towards our goals, therefore we're done helping you". Normalizing this behavior isn't going to help you win the next one either, trust us on that.

 

[Frozenprince]

..did people really think Obama was going to bring about all kinds of change? Did people really think Bernie was going to give us free college and health care?

The most a President can do is move the needle a bit one way or the other.

So far Trump has moved away from a lot of his campaign promises... like pretty much every politician ever.

Also when I say I moved on, I moved on from getting bent out of shape about Trump winning. It's time to find a new person to get behind so we can take shit back during the mid-terms and take the Presidency come 2020.

Yes?

You can't promise something in a campaign then go "but see what I really meant was".

Bush Sr ran his entire campaign around "No New Taxes" then raised taxes. And was taken to task over that.

 

[Frozenprince]

I mean honestly we're trying to act like a dude who's campaign was literally endorsed by the Klan didn't say some racist shit? We're so far beyond sanity and reason at this point I don't even know where else to go.

 

[molnizzle]

What I'm looking for a guess is an honest answer as to why their rationalizations are ok, but ours are not. This seems to be the position that a lot of people are taking and to be perfectly honest, if they would just say they care more about getting back these people's votes than the feelings of minorities, I'd be satisfied. Everything else is just posturing to appear caring but it's meaningless without action.

I don't think it's a matter of their rationalizations being more "ok," it's just what they are. My parents voted for Trump and they hand waived all the disgusting shit away because they had more problems with Hillary. They did support a racist platform, even if they didn't mean to, and I try to explain that to them. But they did not have malice in their hearts and a desire to dominate minorities. Minority issues just don't have a real effect on them so the shit that Trump would spew was easy to just ignore. It's gross and irresponsible and that's what I'm trying to help them see. I'm confident I can get through to them eventually because they are good people who harbor no hatred toward anyone.

To your point though, yes, I want their votes back. I don't want to see more monsters like Trump given power in the United States. His election is a national embarrassment and I am prepared to do almost anything to make sure it never happens again. I completely understand why most minorities feel differently. I'm sure I would too if I wasn't white. I am though, so I'm gonna keep trying. We just can't let this shit happen again.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

I don't think it's a matter of their rationalizations being more "ok," it's just what they are. My parents voted for Trump and they hand waived all the disgusting shit away because they had more problems with Hillary. They did support a racist platform, even if they didn't mean to, and I try to explain that to them. But they did not have malice in their hearts and a desire to dominate minorities. Minority issues just don't have a real effect on them so the shit that Trump would spew was easy to just ignore. It's gross and irresponsible and that's what I'm trying to help them see. I'm confident I can get through to them eventually because they are good people who harbor no hatred toward anyone.

To your point though, yes, I want their votes back. I don't want to see more monsters like Trump given power in the United States. His election is a national embarrassment and I am prepared to do almost anything to make sure it never happens again. I completely understand why most minorities feel differently. I'm sure I would too if I wasn't white. I am though, so I'm gonna keep trying. We just can't let this shit happen again.

Thank you for your honesty.

 

[CrispyBoar]

If people want to reduce racism, then things need to be changing in this country, such as innocent African-American men getting shot & killed by the police for no real reason ever since the 2010's.

There needs to be a police reform, & something like a "End Racial Profiling Act" bill needs to be made & signed.

 

[soul creator]

What I'm looking for a guess is an honest answer as to why their rationalizations are ok, but ours are not. This seems to be the position that a lot of people are taking and to be perfectly honest, if they would just say they care more about getting back these people's votes than the feelings of minorities, I'd be satisfied. Everything else is just posturing to appear caring but it's meaningless without action.

Well, for some people (not me personally), they really do fetishize "civility" to an absurd extent. I disagree with that approach.

From my personal perspective, it's more about just understanding how human beings work, and trying to figure out strategies for not getting people to vote for assholes like Trump in the future. If in some particular case, that means me holding my "fuck you trump supporters" tongue for a second, then I'm willing to try that.

But the key point I think is that I look at it as a particular tactic for a particular time for a particular set of people. I don't have a blanket "civility always wins!" approach, and I also don't have a blanket "fuck you if you didn't vote D" approach either. And me not using the "fuck you" approach in a particular situation doesn't mean that I have to somehow be friends with them, or abandon minorities or whatever other response people usually have to that.

 

[Frozenprince]

I don't think it's a matter of their rationalizations being more "ok," it's just what they are. My parents voted for Trump and they hand waived all the disgusting shit away because they had more problems with Hillary. They did support a racist platform, even if they didn't mean to, and I try to explain that to them. But they did not have malice in their hearts and a desire to dominate minorities. Minority issues just don't have a real effect on them so the shit that Trump would spew was easy to just ignore. It's gross and irresponsible and that's what I'm trying to help them see. I'm confident I can get through to them eventually because they are good people who harbor no hatred toward anyone.

To your point though, yes, I want their votes back. I don't want to see more monsters like Trump given power in the United States. His election is a national embarrassment and I am prepared to do almost anything to make sure it never happens again. I completely understand why most minorities feel differently. I'm sure I would too if I wasn't white. I am though, so I'm gonna keep trying. We just can't let this shit happen again.

And as I and others try and point out, what your parents did is "implicit" racism. It's something that exists to those that are not impacted by the racist policies that will alter peoples lives.

I, too, appreciate your honesty and I wish you luck in trying to hopefully make your parents understand.

 

[plagiarize]

My issue with this, is that we have people like those people from Clay who openly shared blatantly racist opinions and were utterly shocked when people pointed out their racism.

How exactly do they find themselves in 2016 thinking they can call a black woman an ape in heels? Maybe if people had more clearly explained to them what racism is they wouldn't be so shocked.

But fuck trying to reason with people like that. I'm supposed to stop calling people racist because a bunch of people voted for a racist?

A racist who is normalizing racist behaviour and empowering these people to put on their hoods and openly march?

You can talk about changing minds and winning people over. Fine, please have at it, but I'm going to be over here ensuring that racist behaviour remains stigmatized and that people see there is a consequence for spouting racist bullshit so that maybe the minorities don't have to suffer that shit so much, even if that means we wrote off a few people that could maybe have been reasoned with.

 

[hawk2025]

What I'm looking for a guess is an honest answer as to why their rationalizations are ok, but ours are not. This seems to be the position that a lot of people are taking and to be perfectly honest, if they would just say they care more about getting back these people's votes than the feelings of minorities, I'd be satisfied. Everything else is just posturing to appear caring but it's meaningless without action.

Exactly.

Just let me know where you stand and stop playing coy.

You want to care less about us to win elections, fair enough -- but don't pretend you are not doing it, and don't tell us to sit down.

I'm done sitting down, especially if my friends decided that they will stand a little more over there instead of steadfastly by my side.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Well, for some people (not me personally), they really do fetishize "civility" to an absurd extent. I disagree with that approach.

From my personal perspective, it's more about just understanding how human beings work, and trying to figure out strategies for not getting people to vote for assholes like Trump in the future. If in some particular case, that means me holding my "fuck you trump supporters" tongue for a second, then I'm willing to try that.

But the key point I think is that I look at it as a particular tactic for a particular time for a particular set of people. I don't have a blanket "civility always wins!" approach, and I also don't have a blanket "fuck you if you didn't vote D" approach either. And me not using the "fuck you" approach in a particular situation doesn't mean that I have to somehow be friends with them, or abandon minorities or whatever other response people usually have to that.

Yeah, I understand that from a sheer numbers standpoint the Dems need those people back, and as long as it's presented as just the pragmatic thing to do and not the right thing to do, especially by people who are jumping between threads to tell minorities they're overreacting (not you of course) then it really doesn't bother me.

 

[Jonm1010]

My issue with this, is that we have people like those people from Clay who openly shared blatantly racist opinions and were utterly shocked when people pointed out their racism.

How exactly do they find themselves in 2016 thinking they can call a black woman an ape in heels? Maybe if people had more clearly explained to them what racism is they wouldn't be so shocked.

But fuck trying to reason with people like that. I'm supposed to stop calling people racist because a bunch of people voted for a racist?

A racist who is normalizing racist behaviour and empowering these people to put on their hoods and openly march?

You can talk about changing minds and winning people over. Fine, please have at it, but I'm going to be over here ensuring that racist behaviour remains stigmatized and that people see there is a consequence for spouting racist bullshit so that maybe the minorities don't have to suffer that shit so much, even if that means we wrote off a few people that could maybe have been reasoned with.

The author is just articulating what he has learned while investigating how to reduce racial bias on the personal level. What research and experts he tapped says may work and what research says doesn't.

Yes it is pushing back on the assumption you speak too that shame or confrontational exchanges on a personal level will reduce or prevent future harm. I don't think there is a problem investigating the efficacy of that within that particular context.




....It is worth noting that the underlying study that opened this article only had a success rate of 1 in 10. And this study definitely needs follow ups and further research to verify and/or further strengthen or weaken its conclusions to better establish how worthwhile this avenue is for those who are open to pursuing it. Those who are open being a key phrase imo. Because while I don think this article suggests it, this shouldn't be conflated with the notion the oppressed have any obligation to respond to their oppression in this manner.

 

[Jonm1010]

Exactly.

Just let me know where you stand and stop playing coy.

You want to care less about us to win elections, fair enough -- but don't pretend you are not doing it, and don't tell us to sit down.

I'm done sitting down, especially if my friends decided that they will stand a little more over there instead of steadfastly by my side.

Why must this be framed in an either/or manner? Pushing people that hold a certain opinion, like arguing in favor of making certain appeals to white, non-college educated voters, automatically condemn them to one specific characterization?

Can it not just be that people that have the same end goal in mind have disagreements on strategy and tactics? Is that not a conversation that should be acceptable to have in the midst of this shocking election?

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

This terribly written article is not what the OP should have linked, because the assertion it makes is not even true. The research did NOT test for whether calling someone racists makes the situation worse or not. It was not even in the purview.

The article about the study itself is much better, and I think, much more thread worthy.

 

[Ryzaki009]

A race war? You have people uniting yelling Black Lives Matter because they do not in this country while still getting murdered by cops, but your wife thinks there will be a race war when white people own up to racism?


Really now. So we protest in the street for justice but what we really want is to have a race war..

I will never understand people saying blacks want a race war. We're ~15% of the population. Only damn fools would want to start a race war. yet we're supposed to be that stupid? Good lord every time someone brings up race war my head hurts.

 

[soul creator]

Why must this be framed in an either/or manner? Pushing people that hold a certain opinion, like arguing in favor of making certain appeals to white, non-college educated voters, automatically condemn them to one specific characterization?

Can it not just be that people that have the same end goal in mind have disagreements on strategy and tactics? Is that not a conversation that should be acceptable to have in the midst of this shocking election?

My hot take: a lot of mainstream Democrats have deeply internalized the "pragmatism" and "compromise" and "don't let perfect be the enemy of the good", "can't scare off the moderates", line of thinking that's become so prevalent over the last 20+ years, so when someone comes along and says "hey, maybe we can win those white voters, and have a strong message for the working class without abandoning minorites", at best, it seems like the most radical, unbelieveable thing in the world...and at worst, it seems like someone using that as cover to shit on minorities. And well, Democrats already have a history of doing just that, so the skepticism is actually warranted to some extent.

I mean, something has to be compromised, no? Nobody gets everything they want! Nothing is free! Bill Clinton had to compromise and sell some people out in the 90's, so clearly in 2016 the exact same thing applies, right? Wasn't that one of the main talking points in the primary, and the primary message of Democrats in almost every single election in recent history (well, maybe except the 2008 hope/change campaign)? We can't fight for too many things at the same time, lest we scare off part of the coalition. So we'll compromise on fighting capitalism for the most part, and push forward on catering to minority issues (and behave as if minority issues and capitalism don't intersect). So you get comments like "breaking up the big banks won't solve racism" as if somehow those are two entirely unrelated issues with no connective tissue in between.

So if that's the starting point of someone's political thinking, then of course they'll react with skepticism at having to adjust policy/messaging to win more white voters. The vast majority of messaging we've been told in recent history is that black issues go in this bucket, and white issues go in this bucket, and never shall they meet. Even though it's so obviously disproved by a guy that ran in 2008, and a guy that ran in 2016.

 

[Jonm1010]

This terribly written article is not what the OP should have linked, because the assertion it makes is not even true. The research did NOT test for whether calling someone racists makes the situation worse or not. It was not even in the purview.

The article about the study itself is much better, and I think, much more thread worthy.

This article tries to attack the issue more broadly and with a different thesis.

Personally my main issue with the article is it is a bit misleading since it doesn't clarify the findings from the opening study this piece leads with. Not saying a 10% success rate on something as difficult to maneuver through as reducing personal prejudice is not something to take major note of, but the article leaves the level of efficacy open for assumption. Which is not good journalism imo.

Also some other issues. Still, the study itself is interesting and I hope we get more research into things like this. Done with a similar level of rigor.

 

[mugwhump]

But how could it not work when it feels so good

 

[Jonm1010]

My hot take: a lot of mainstream Democrats have deeply internalized the "pragmatism" and "compromise" and "don't let perfect be the enemy of the good", "can't scare off the moderates", line of thinking that's become so prevalent over the last 20+ years, so when someone comes along and says "hey, maybe we can win those white voters, and have a strong message for the working class without abandoning minorites", at best, it seems like the most radical, unbelieveable thing in the world...and at worst, it seems like someone using that as cover to shit on minorities. And well, Democrats already have a history of doing just that, so the skepticism is actually warranted to some extent.

I mean, something has to be compromised, no? Nobody gets everything they want! Nothing is free! Bill Clinton had to compromise and sell some people out in the 90's, so clearly in 2016 the exact same thing applies, right? Wasn't that one of the main talking points in the primary, and the primary message of Democrats in almost every single election in recent history (well, maybe except the 2008 hope/change campaign)? We can't fight for too many things at the same time, lest we scare off part of the coalition. So we'll compromise on fighting capitalism for the most part, and push forward on catering to minority issues (and behave as if minority issues and capitalism don't intersect). So you get comments like "breaking up the big banks won't solve racism" as if somehow those are two entirely unrelated issues with no connective tissue in between.

So if that's the starting point of someone's political thinking, then of course they'll react with skepticism at having to adjust policy/messaging to win more white voters. The vast majority of messaging we've been told in recent history is that black issues go in this bucket, and white issues go in this bucket, and never shall they meet. Even though it's so obviously disproved by a guy that ran in 2008, and a guy that ran in 2016.

Well I think first off, what this election is largely forcing for the Democratic party is final separation from the Bill Clinton "third way" that dominated the party even into Obama's presidency. It seems the party is finally recognizing that approach, which was targeted in large part at that Reagan demographic, is now almost completely outdated

To your issue of trade offs, I think, honestly, that is sort of the case Bernie Sanders of all people spoke to on Colbert. He sees a lot of overlap between certain issues and concerns from white non-college graduate people where the ideals and arguments already in place offer solutions and hope to aspects of their situation. You just have to speak to them and show concern. Not altogether different from what Obama said and did. Though Bernie seems to go even further and dismiss the notion that in order to do that you must embrace a Obama style racially neutral message across your entire platform. That offering that message should not and does not require lessening the priority of minority issues.

Though to jump back to the article, this piece does suggest maybe reframing the solutions could make them more conducive to broader acceptance like the body cam example. And frankly, optimal framing of policy is always something worth looking into IMO.

Now, I get the skepticism and I share it. What I personally think and what the party will ultimately pursue will likely not align. So when I was speaking I was speaking on a personal level. Pushing back coming from a personal level.

Joe Manchin is IMO where my eye is focused on. His history suggests a "third way" pre-Trump DINO type approach to being a moderate Democrat in a red state, however some of his recent comments suggest an ideological shift toward supporting a unified economic message. One that seems more aligned with the Bernie/Warren wing then the traditional Bill Clinton approach. I think how Manchin positions himself and his level of influence on setting the strategy will say a lot about the prioritization of minority issues.

 

[Professor Beef]

I think at this point I would rather deal with someone who says "I don't want to help because I'm lazy and it's hard." At least then I could respect the honesty and we could both save each other a lot of time. Don't point out what people should be doing; either help or fucking get out of the way.

 

[Angelus Errare]

You're wrong there, he did run on economic issues. The wall was about curbing illegal immigration and the thought they were taking American jobs. Getting rid of NAFTA and raising tariffs on China and penalizing American companies who close shop to set over seas... all economic. Tax cuts across the board, economic.

I think he's on the wrong side of ALL those issues, but he won the primaries because of it. He was anti-establishment, he had a catch phrase, and a stupid hat.

People actually have a pretty good ability to weed out bullshit, more than we give them credit for. People didn't really want a wall, they wanted border security, they don't want to ban muslims, they want to make sure terrorists aren't coming over, they want to know their job isn't getting shipped overseas. The rest of the crap was just noise.

Actually they don't, I mean you just have human history proving this statement wrong.

As for the entirety of your post. It's not like tying race into economic issues is a strategy or anything, nope not at all.

 

[Angelus Errare]

How does that dehumanize you? I don't get it. You have to allow that.

And I'm not saying do nothing. Of course do something if you want to, but why waste energy in things that don't help?

Of course it's a loli anime avatar. Of course.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

My method for reducing racism was:

1. Get dems in power.
2. Keep dems in power.

This way education and social balancing is more apt to occur, and in doing so we raise future generations who are better equipped in rejecting prejudice.

But we gone and f'ed that right up now didn't we.

 

[Ploid 3.0]

Sometimes it's just not worth trying to reason with people that just don't care about what you are saying.

That said, I'm finding it hard to remember a instance in which I called someone racist online. I know for sure I haven't done it in person. I usually try to pretend I didn't see or hear things, don't want to give them the satisfaction (if racist like actions are directed towards me). Real racist people almost need a intervention by loved ones to break them out of their ways I feel. A stranger will probably piss them off most likely, "You don't know me!". That or the stranger save the person's life after being called a racial slur resulting in being stuck in a boat for about 2 days or so.

"Hey, I'm sorry about what I said before I almost drowned. Thanks for saving me even though I must have pissed you off. You saving me like that and letting me on your boat resulted in me thinking about how easy it could have been for you to just let me die, heck I almost drowned us both. You may be a woman, and you may look slightly different than me, but we are all the same. I'm an idio.. you know, I blame xyz."

 

[Frozenprince]

Actually they don't, I mean you just have human history proving this statement wrong.

As for the entirety of your post. It's not like tying race into economic issues is a strategy or anything, nope not at all.

You know good and god damn well these people don't care to learn about the (still going on) southern strategy.

 

[royalan]

This thread has been up since 5PM yesterday.

Just sayin.

 

[Ishan]

How many of you convinced your friend they were wrong on something by bitching them out as opposed to saying hey man common see this is not cool cause ? Same with racism . I really hope more ppl get the difference between realising something is wrong and trying to help ppl realize it's wrong two very different things .and if you don't get the difference ... Dunno what to say

 

[Future]

I don't think it's a matter of their rationalizations being more "ok," it's just what they are. My parents voted for Trump and they hand waived all the disgusting shit away because they had more problems with Hillary. They did support a racist platform, even if they didn't mean to, and I try to explain that to them. But they did not have malice in their hearts and a desire to dominate minorities. Minority issues just don't have a real effect on them so the shit that Trump would spew was easy to just ignore. It's gross and irresponsible and that's what I'm trying to help them see. I'm confident I can get through to them eventually because they are good people who harbor no hatred toward anyone.

To your point though, yes, I want their votes back. I don't want to see more monsters like Trump given power in the United States. His election is a national embarrassment and I am prepared to do almost anything to make sure it never happens again. I completely understand why most minorities feel differently. I'm sure I would too if I wasn't white. I am though, so I'm gonna keep trying. We just can't let this shit happen again.

Tried to explain this in the past. Most white people dont give a fuck about racism, as proven by this election. People on gaf ready to call out every racial insensitive thing and most of America is like whateva, doesn't effect me. Doesn't make them racist too. It does mean they are indirectly supporting racism, but they are not gonna give a shit

It's why affirmative action is always such a sensitive topic. Diversify students and improve student racial relations while helping disadvantaged minorites have a chance? FUCK THAT IF MY WHITE KID CANT GET IN. It's the cold reality of the world and what Chappell and Chris rock were joking about in that snl skit

And that's why calling them racist won't help because they've been called racist before. Every time a selfish choice is made that hurts disadvantaged groups someone has called them out on it. Trumps rhetoric emboldened this group more to feel like they have a right to be selfish. And in a way they do.

Honestly this shit will never change until America diversifies enough that more people get affected by racism. White people have minority friends, spouses and teachers. And similar to a republican with a gay kid that is suddenly very interested in gay rights, it's this diversification that will eventually change the world as people see first hand how people close to them get fucked. Until they can empathize, minorities can continue getting fucked

 

[Frozenprince]

This thread has been up since 5PM yesterday.

Just sayin.

And well over half the posts in it are by minorities.

People DGAF about us.

 

[NewGame]

I remember exhaustively testing this with stupid people. I went around informing people of how stupid they are, their stupid subconscious inflections and micro-stupidities.

Didn't seem to fix society. Made me feel good about myself though and in the end that's what really matters.

 

[Frozenprince]

I remember exhaustively testing this with stupid people. I went around informing people of how stupid they are, their stupid subconscious inflections and micro-stupidities.

Didn't seem to fix society. Made me feel good about myself though and in the end that's what really matters.

Everybody repeat this till you're blue in the face and eventually it'll be true!

 

[IrishNinja]

This thread has been up since 5PM yesterday.

Just sayin.

tired, baseless narratives on how the election was lost are so much easier than, you know, actually trying to make shit better, fam

but hey, maybe it's better this thread serves as a catch-all for the drive-by "why not give racism a chance?" apologists

Didn't seem to fix society. Made me feel good about myself though and in the end that's what really matters.

oh look, here's one now

 

[EmSeta]

-_-

I've seen a lot of people on this thread talk about how a "conversation" or "talking" or "not going "YOU'RE RACIST" " as being equivalent to "coddling" or some other bs. This article is about a research paper and how that applies to social psychology in a way that can benefit those who are marginalized.

But the thing is, maybe you should stop looking at those tactics as opposing you and your beliefs and instead try actually fucking using them. The research is indicating that these specific tactics seem to work and that outright name calling doesn't. Its not about "oh why should we care about their feeling when they don't care about us as people" its "we need to get people to actually START CARING".

And to the people who constantly say "well there are just so many who don't wanna bother" or "a majority can't be changed in their ways", get the fuck out of here with that shit. If Fox News and conservative media can use scare tactics and psychology tricks to make people who would otherwise be liberal to think the crazy shit the Republican party has been dowsing for years through mind games, then you should know full well that can work for you too. Use what you can and what can work in your favor god dammit and stop going on about how talking or educating or "coddling" is something those bigots and asses don't deserve. If its a helpful tool, and the tool you are advocating is showing to be ineffective, why the fuck are you acting like anti-vaxxers and doubling down against the research?

Having someone come to a compassionate conclusion themselves is far more powerful than screaming and yelling. Want people to change? Talk and get at their very being!

Well put. No idea is beyond scrutiny, and no person beyond dignity. Respectful conversation is always the best option, even with someone who holds horrible opinions.

 

[Jonm1010]

tired, baseless narratives on how the election was lost are so much easier than, you know, actually trying to make shit better, fam

but hey, maybe it's better this thread serves as a catch-all for the drive-by "why not give racism a chance?" apologists



oh look, here's one now

To make things better, doesn't that first require accurately identifying the causes of the problems, analyzing the efficacy of the available solutions and putting that together to form an effective strategy to achieve a desired result?


I have to say, it is getting kinda frustrating to keep coming across all these posts that are at their core basically vilifying the process of critical thinking and problem solving. Attempting to shut down or put people on the defensive by framing their engagement of that process through this study as secretly being a cover for wanting to coddle racists and dismiss minority issues.

I am sure there are people that will likely do that, maybe some that have, and when I feel evidence supports it, i'll be right there with you calling that shit out.

 

[Oppo]

To make things better, doesn't that first require accurately identifying the causes of the problems, analyzing the efficacy of the available solutions and putting that together to form an effective strategy to achieve a desired result?


I have to say, it is getting kinda frustrating to keep coming across all these posts that are at their core basically vilifying the process of critical thinking and problem solving. Attempting to shut down or put people on the defensive by framing their engagement of that process through this study as secretly being a cover for wanting to coddle racists and dismiss minority issues.

I am sure there are people that will likely do that, maybe some that have, and when I feel evidence supports it, i'll be right there with you calling that shit out.

yeah i hear that. it's tiring.

i get that the high horse is comfortable and has a great view. and i really understand the notion of "why the fuck should i help these assholes".

but every so often you can get through by not knee jerking and noticing an opening that won't automatically put people back on their heels. you might get a surprisingly good result. or – you might get a dismissal - but one that informs the person down the line, to change their ways , and you'll never see it, but you contributed.

too easy to just dismiss the vox article study's suggestions because it asks more of one than simply saying "fuck off" for the millionth time. much more.

 

[Frozenprince]

yeah i hear that. it's tiring.

i get that the high horse is comfortable and has a great view. and i really understand the notion of "why the fuck should i help these assholes".

but every so often you can get through by not knee jerking and noticing an opening that won't automatically put people back on their heels. you might get a surprisingly good result. or – you might get a dismissal - but one that informs the person down the line, to change their ways , and you'll never see it, but you contributed.

too easy to just dismiss the vox article study's suggestions because it asks more of one than simply saying "fuck off" for the millionth time. much more.

Because we haven't been trying that at all ever your right! Bravo you solved racism. It's almost as if problem solving is basically all we get to do as we have to exist as walking exemplars of our people in order to not offend sensibilities.

 

[MelliiDragon]

Even though i agree it's a good strategy if you want other people to understand something I don't think it is always that simple. Especially in a public Forum it is not only about making people understand, but there are other things that need to be considered as well. For example how much of a public platform do you give someone without saying "hey thats not ok" or how supported will the people feel that are hurt by the racist act. Even though it would be nice if there would be a simple way to fight racissm I dont think it realy exists.

If you fight against something there is always the danger of someone fighting back. So i don't think there is a way fighting racissm that doesn't include at least the posibillity of someone becoming more racisst because of it. Thats why it wouldn't be good to say something is bad just because it has the possibility of making it worse. (Even though I don't want to say it is not important to at least make that possibility smaller)

And while I agree talking calmly to someone can be important, calling out people that they shouldn't call people racisst doesn't often help. If someone calls someone else a racisst, its best to try to explain to the other person why what he did could be interpreted as racisst instead of telling someone they should stop calling people racisst. If you can convince the other Person that they see what they did was racisst people will see "hey explaining can work". And that is way better than trying to explain to people why calmly explaining things is better after they most likely have already lost hope in that method.

And if you just call out people that call other people racist and do nothing else, there is a high chance that the person that did the racisst act will think you agree with him that it isn't racisst even though you just wanted to say that it's not helpfull to call it racist.

 

[Messofanego]

This thread has been up since 5PM yesterday.

Just sayin.

And well over half the posts in it are by minorities.

People DGAF about us.

Hmm not a good look on white people!

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Well put. No idea is beyond scrutiny, and no person beyond dignity. Respectful conversation is always the best option, even with someone who holds horrible opinions.

That post you quoted isn't exactly a good example of respectful conversation lol

 

[Frozenprince]

Hmm not a good look on white people!

It's become nothing but trolls, white fragility and a few people with self reflection.

So about as expected.

 

[Oppo]

Because we haven't been trying that at all ever your right! Bravo you solved racism. It's almost as if problem solving is basically all we get to do as we have to exist as walking exemplars of our people in order to not offend sensibilities.

no, just keep an open mind, i think.

nyt9's post is a great example.

 

[Jonm1010]

Because we haven't been trying that at all ever your right! Bravo you solved racism.

I mean the study making up the foundation of the article showed an efficacy rate of 10%.

So the study's own conclusions are not suggesting this will solve racism. Just that this particular approach, using a very specific canvassing approach that used "active-processing" and had the canvassers engage the person in "analogic perspective-taking" showed a 1 in 10 efficacy in reducing negative trans bias.

And it should be mentioned, since people continue to widely assign false motivation and conclusions to this study and this piece, that the underlying study's conclusions and motivations were focused on how campaigns can be more effective at their messaging and winning over support.

 

[Messofanego]

It's become nothing but trolls, white fragility and a few people with self reflection.

So about as expected.

If a tiny ass forum with liberal whites as majority can't get this through and troll instead, what hope is there for the real world?

 

[Jonm1010]

If a tiny ass forum with liberal whites as majority can't get this through and troll instead, what hope is there for the real world?

Who is trolling???

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Who is trolling???

You really should take a look at that thread

http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=1315797

 

[Frozenprince]

You really should take a look at that thread

http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=1315797

Fucking thing is more about a sitcom then anything else.

It perfectly illustrates what we've been talking about here. If the mere thought of having to shoulder a bit of our burden does that, then what the hell else are we're supposed to do to make people give a fuck?

White fragility is so overwhelming that there really is nothing we can say or do to counter it.

 

[Lightning_Roller]

That's nice, Vox. I'm still gonna call a spade a spade. They get offended by it, then that's something they need to fix and work on, not me.

"B-but..."

I said what I said.

 

[Yjynx]

I actually really agree with this but I know a lot of people that trying to done this to their own family and friends - it didn't work

They're trying to be nice alright but the respond are quite.....something.


Have they actually tested this on all types of racisms? I'm not saying there is rank but the overall result might not have been pretty.....