[lbarrett]

The important question about this perspective is, I think, this: How do you fight against harmful, unjust beliefs such as racism without making it socially uncomfortable for people to express them? The author says that racism is a big powerful force that should be fought but then argues only for weakening our social defenses against it.

I recognize that this could seem like an attack, but I'm really not calling the author racist. What I want is to know, how can we have greater agreement that racism is bad, and more diversity of expression about racism, at the same time? It seems contradictory.

[moonshinefe]

If your beliefs are correct, you should be able to have a rational debate against someone from the other side and prove your position is correct.

If they won't rationally debate you, sinking to their level and shouting them down / using underhanded means to "win" just puts you on their level and gains sympathy for the other side & hurts your reputation.

Unfortunately, I think that's the main issue that the author is getting at; it's gotten to the point where I can barely tell the far left from the far right anymore in terms of how irrational and sometimes violent they are. It's slogans, it's shouting down, it's even threats or actual violence.

When you disregard civility and resort to those tactics, it's tribalism.

[lbarrett]

I agree that rational debate is good, but in this case the rational debate has to include judgment because the one side of the debate is arguing that the other side (say, racism), is evil. That prevents it from being a perfectly calm, rational debate because the other side ends up (accurately) feeling judged and condemned. That's exactly the thing the author dislikes here--that the people supporting the non-mainstream views on these issues feel that it's not socially acceptable to have those views, so they feel they can't speak up.

So, how can people argue that bigotry is unacceptable and wrong without making it harder for bigots to speak up?

[sewercake]

While I agree with your sentiment, civility should be seen as the optimal method to make political decisions, not the only way. Blind admonition of tactics that don't fall into its camp can lead to a really limited understanding of politics.

[gozur88]

>What I want is to know, how can we have greater agreement that racism is bad, and more diversity of expression about racism, at the same time? It seems contradictory.

I don't understand this logic. To have greater agreement about something requires convincing people. If you forbid discussion of a topic, you have given up any chance of convincing anyone of anything; you've simply temporarily driven the other side underground.

It may look like you're making headway. But that's an illusion.

[lbarrett]

Let's be clear--right now, there is this discussion. Now, when some people promote racism, others explain that they're wrong, and why. This is exactly the thing that the article argues against--the author wants to remove all this censure, and have that majority stop arguing that being racist is wrong, so that racist people will feel comfortable expressing their views without any fear of chastisement.

So, you're suggesting that we can argue that racism is bad without making racists feel judged for being racist? Please, explain to me how we can do that.

[gozur88]

Actual racists are perfectly happy to be called racists and will self-identify as such. The people who feel bad when you call them racists are the people who aren't actually racist. The discussion around racism isn't about whether racism is good or bad, and it hasn't been for decades. The discussion is around what exactly constitutes racism, and there are a whole lot of people out there ready to label all manner of innocuous behavior as racist.

[lbarrett]

I think one thing that causes conflict here is that there are a lot of things that aren't blatantly racist, but rather subtly racist. For instance, casually assuming that a minority student is less capable than a white student is the sort of thing someone might do without thinking of themselves as racist, but it is still actually racist and harmful. Subtle racism like this still needs to be identified and opposed, and I'm interested in how that can be done without making people feel so uncomfortable and judged.

[mc32]

One way I could see is talking about it abstractly --either examining breeds of an animal or imagine being an alien from outer space and talking about the different aspects. Although, admittedly in either case it may be an imperfect instrument because for example one can see how one kind of cat may be better at some thing (mouse catching) than others --but still, we can ask why if we wanted what's best for all cats, would we prefer one kind of cat over another.

It's probably the same for religion. Use thought experiments rather than talking about things directly which could hurt someone who is not prepared to have an open discussion.

[belovedeagle]

> How do you fight against harmful, unjust beliefs such as racism without making it socially uncomfortable for people to express them?

I've got a better question: in what way is making it dangerous ("uncomfortable" is an underhanded euphemism) to express certain views advancing the "fight" against them? It's really an attack on "those [other] people", and not at all on their beliefs: since ideas can't be physically and verbally attacked and abused, if abuse happens (it does), it can only be directed at people. In fact the liberal elite has largely abandoned the "fight against racism". It's entirely likely that a legitimate treatment of the subject, an "Against Racism", would be attacked (or rather, its author would be attacked) as "normalizing" racism. I'm entirely serious: I have observed claims by everyday liberal elites in their safe spaces (e.g., HN, reddit) that it's not acceptable to explain why certain views are bad because doing so normalizes them.

[qball]

>in what way is making it dangerous to express certain views advancing the "fight" against them?

Because the inconvenient truth of liberty is that authoritarianism gets results fast and delivers "solid" security. So in theory, it shouldn't matter how racist someone is, or how much they disagree with the current government/religion, or whatever; our ability to hurt or kill them should override that need for self-actualization.

And it works. If you are (or feel- being implies feeling) in danger, it's much less work to trust another individual if you already know they share the same values as you; and a community that has very rigid standards helps suppress the values they don't share with you. You can see this work in poor countries; extremist groups and local communities in general aren't attractive without their moral strictures (religion is usually the tool for this task).

The downside, of course, is that authoritarianism by its nature fails far more violently when enough of the people under it gain the power to disrupt it; and since oppression breeds resentment they tend to be very angry and negatively affect a large cross-section of that society. Liberty doesn't fail like that and allows for a far more flexible society, but it also takes longer to work and depends on other forces to make that happen (usually for company profit, like if a business makes enough money on Sunday to pay a fine levied on businesses open that day).

So liberty is the long-term solution... but since authoritarianism is the short-term solution it's way more likely to be preferred by society. And you can't stop the human bug of desiring short-term gain unless you make that preference dangerous to express in which case we've come full-circle.

[lbarrett]

So, let's talk about the really basic case: calling people out for making racial slurs. If someone uses the n-word on my friend (or "faggot" or "jewed" or "gypped" or what have you), then me saying to that person, "Please don't say a mean, racist thing like that," fights against racism, by helping enforce a social norm that racism is not okay.

How would you recommend handling a situation like that? How would you work to stop a racist behavior, without making someone feel uncomfortable for doing it?

[belovedeagle]

> How would you recommend handling a situation like that?

If they were harming myself or a third party, I would leverage the remedies society makes available: the courts, the cops, etc. If not, and I were motivated, I would attempt rational debate about the matter, which can be started as simply as stating that [IMO] their words or actions are inappropriate (which is not what you were suggesting before). In the event that doesn't make a difference, I would simply walk away.

What I find shocking and disturbing is how intent you seem to be on harming someone just because you disagree with them. There are perfectly nonviolent racists out there who know how to mind their own business who I'd rather associate with than someone like you...

[ahartman00]

Just some thoughts:

You could ask why they chose to use that word. Some people just aren't aware of racist connotations of certain words.

You could ask how they would feel if someone used a slur against a group that they were a member of.