It is a pleasant thought. What if we could just be gentle and kind to people pushing awful, destructive policies that actively oppress marginalized groups, and then those policies would change? Wouldn't it be great if we could just stop calling people racist and then they would listen to us and be better?
You can probably guess that I think this is a stupid plan.
There are two things at play here, and I think it is useful to separate them. First, there is the issue of efficacy. If we want to push a progressive agenda that reduces oppression, is it effective to be nice to people instead of calling them bigots? The article just assumes this with no proof - according to it, we would convince many more people to be good if we stop calling out bigoted behaviour when we see it.
*If* this worked I would buy into it. I am big on results, and if I could get people on board by just politely talking about the problems with their behaviour I could see doing that. If people who want to make voting require more proof could be made to see how that does nothing significant to reduce voter fraud, that voter fraud is a non issue, and that preventing poor people (who are disproportionately people of colour and queer) from voting is a problem, I would be happy to talk nicely to them.
But I see absolutely no sign that this actually works. Certainly some people listen to calm discussions, and some people listen to outrage, but I have seen *nothing* that suggests that calm discussion is broadly more effective. All the calm discussion in the world wasn't going to end slavery, or get women the vote, or achieve other progressive milestones. That took violence, protest, and extreme positions.
So if being nice to bigots actually changed minds, I could be convinced. But I don't think that it does work, so there isn't an efficacy argument.
The second argument is about whether or not it is appropriate to use loaded terms like racist or bigot just because someone voices a political opinion.
Of course it fucking is, if their opinion is that government ought to do things that oppress people.
When people don't have health coverage, they die. When queer people aren't allowed to marry, are pushed out of housing or jobs because of their orientation, or are physically assaulted, they suffer. Some will even die due to the negative health consequences of these things. When wealth is shifted towards the extremely rich and away from the poor that creates serious suffering, and, again, death.
So if someone pushes for governments to enact policies that do these things, they are actively trying to cause pain, suffering, and death. They may not intend pain, suffering, and death, but they do intend to push agendas that cause those things and they are unwilling to do the utterly trivial research and/or thought required to realize this.
When someone does this and we call them racist or bigoted, it hurts their feelings, and then they cry about how their political views are just opinions, nothing important. But being called racist, well that is positively hurtful!
"Look, I am just asking for people that are different from me to die. No need to get mad about it. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to debate with me in a calm manner!"
It reminds me of a quote attributed to Margaret Atwood. "Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them." It describes this situation nicely, really. Many people pushing conservative viewpoints are terribly afraid of being called racist, and yet fail to see that the people on the other side are afraid of DYING.
If you are going to call for death and suffering for others, you had damn well better be ready to be called nasty names.
When people call for law and order drug wars, when they try to oppress queer people, when they act as though being poor is grounds for being dead, then telling them calmly how they are wrong might change them. Yelling "Racist!" at them might change them. It is hard to say which will work. But what I can say for fucking sure is that if someone was calling for me to suffer and die while simultaneously insisting that I be polite and kind to them I would call them all the nasty words in the book and I sure wouldn't let them pretend that they are owed calm discussion of their reprehensible views.
Say someone noted that requiring a criminal check for a job was really just a way to discriminate against poor people and people of colour. But the employers want to be able to make sure their staff aren't ex-criminals because in their experience, ex-criminals make for worse employees.
ReplyDeleteDo you publicly call out the employers as racist who are trying to kill people of colour?
It depends. There are jobs where a criminal background check is a reasonable precaution - driving an armoured van that delivers money, say. But all kinds of employers have criminal checks for no reason at all, as the employees are not doing anything where having a criminal background is likely a problem. Those are racist to the extent that people of colour are disproportionately imprisoned.
DeleteHowever, there is another thing. We want people who commit crimes to be able to integrate back into society. When they are barred from regular work due to having been in prison, guess what happens? They commit more crimes because they have no other alternative. So maybe people with criminal records are worse employees, on average. (I would be curious about proof of this.) However, the cost of pushing people with criminal records out of regular, legal employment is real, and I think it is higher than the cost of letting them work.
"Ban the Box" is an international campaign to ban criminal record checks because it hinder reintegration of criminals and impacts minorities unduly. There are often exemptions for certain industries, such as those working with children (and possibly armored vehicles).
DeletePeople with convictions are likely to re-offend, which makes them less reliable. Employers (in the US) could face a "negligent hiring" lawsuit if the employee assaults someone. The percentage of people with criminal records who have other issues that might impact employment (mental health, stable housing, substance abuse, emotional trauma, poor interpersonal skills, etc.) is high.
When these policies were originally proposed, people undoubtedly opposed it, likely because they didn't want the government telling them what tests they could use to screen hires.
Is it productive to call them racists in order to implement the new laws?
People calling for the ability to ban employees from normal jobs on the basis of past criminal history are perpetuating a racist system. I think letting them know how bad this problem is rates highly on my 'productive' scale, and I think yelling might actually get their attention while a polite conversation will be completely ignored.
DeleteAs mentioned in person, it turns out that police checks are a signalling mechanism for men of colour that allows those without records to get jobs. When you remove the ability of employers to screen on that criteria, they respond by not hiring anyone of colour and employment goes down.
Deletehttp://time.com/4482150/ban-the-box-unintended-discrimination/
Further comment on your extremist opinions.
ReplyDeletePoverty leads to poorer health outcomes. To use your terminology, policies that don't reduce poverty cause people to die.
Thus, are you saying that anyone who proposes policies that do not alleviate these things are actively trying to cause pain, suffering and death?
That seems a bit harsh. By that measure, you would have strong words for City Council - they are wasting time on a Parks strategy when they could be directing those funds to equalizing socioeconomic outcomes!
Or maybe they don't see the two as being related and feel that screaming "murderer" at them when they try to defend their position is not conducive to informed conversation?
If parks had no effect on happiness or health, then maybe. But they do improve those things. I don't know how spending on parks vs. spending on other social programs stacks up.
DeleteAlso the idea that we should demonize those who are doing good things on the basis that we can come up with someone that we think is a *better* thing is ridiculous. We can't actually throw all the resources at any one thing productively, and need to spread out our spending and thought to achieve best possible outcomes.
I am advocating being loud and angry at people actively trying to do evil things, not being loud and angry at people doing good things that might not be the *best* thing.
I think if you genuinely feel they are killing people by their prioritization of public resources then it's better to let them know that that's how you feel about the situation than to try to try to be blend in with some homogenous normalized position. As if we'd achieve the best social results if we used the mind control ray to eliminate the diverse opinions of the people who want progress rather than just using it on the people who actively want to oppress others.
DeleteIs it harsh to call city council or the province or the feds murderers for letting homeless people freeze to death on the street? Isn't it harsh to let homeless people freeze to death on the street?
Maybe we all ought to actually *feel* our share of how bad that is. Maybe we all ought to actually *feel* our share of denying jobs to indigenous people who are ten times as likely to have been targeted by the justice system. Instead of demanding constant emotional comfort for the people who have it best, maybe we could ask those people to develop enough backbone to understand the impacts that the choices they make have on others.
The problem of a racist justice system and a society with more than enough for all deciding to let some people starve are Bad Things. Bad Things hurt people's feelings: someone is going to have to feel those hurt feelings. Will it be exclusively the racialized groups that also bear the adverse physical outcomes of the system? Should they spare the rest of us from being *called racist* to spare our feelings? Honestly, that sounds kind of racist to me.
I think what the article is suggesting is that in the rush to call everyone a racist, you shut down conversation. It's not really about hurt feelings.
ReplyDeleteYou complain that no one is willing to listen to calm reason, but then proclaim that anyone who disagrees with you will be called out as a racist. Why would anyone try to reason with an obvious crank such as yourself?
It's not whether you want to yell at them or not. You're not able to yell at them because they won't announce their true feelings in public.
There are people who support Trump and the Conservatives and the Republicans, but they're not willing to tell anyone. And if no one engages them, and the only place where they feel like they can talk about things they might have question about is with the far right, what are the odds their opinions will shift?
Yelling at the opposing cranks isn't going to accomplish anything - they don't care what you think. All it does it silence the mid-range conservatives.
The article actually talks specifically about Republicans, which adds another element. Politics is very tribal. It's hard to convince a Republican to become a Democrat. So the goal should be to change Republican party line (also not easy). A progressive change will only be proposed and supported by the moderates, which is the people the article is talking about - the ones that don't want to speak up in this tense environment.
I didn't say everyone that disagrees with me will be called out as a racist. There is *tons* of room for people to disagree with me on all kinds of points. You will note that I didn't call you racist, for example. What I am saying is that when people push for policies that actively damage people of colour, then I am completely willing to use the term racist. I usually use it in the context of an otherwise reasonable discussion, in fact. What you seem to be asking for is protection for people to push for evil, destructive policies while being sure they won't be called names. You haven't shown anything aside from your personal view that suggests that calling people out as racist is more or less effective than being polite, so your efficacy argument is currently dead in the water. I don't think you are making a 'do the right thing' argument, which is good, because I think that argument holds no water whatsoever.
DeleteI'm not asking for anything, I'm just trying to clarify an article. :-)
DeleteMy understanding of the scientific and self-help literature on effective non-violent persuasion suggests strongly that yelling at people doesn't change their mind. Anecdotally, I hear that the United States recently changed course in a more bigoted direction, despite years of conservatives being yelled at, also suggesting lack of efficacy.
Or, you could, possibly, read the article where it cites a study: :-)
"In a 2011 study, three social psychologists then based at the University of Toronto gave college students two different pamphlets meant to combat prejudice. The first emphasized the value of nondiscrimination (“It’s fun to meet people from other cultures”). The second emphasized social norms that discourage discrimination (“People in my social circle disapprove of prejudice”). The second pamphlet was not only less effective than the first in reducing bigotry; it actually led manifestations of bigotry to spike. The scholars concluded that pressuring people to accept a nonbigoted belief can engender resentment that leads them to express more bigotry than they did before."
(I realize it's just one study. I suspect you have not looked for more.)
I'm amused by your read of the article. It comes across as a reversal of the "snowflake" insult hurled by conservatives. The savage glee with which you (and others) take down the idea that being nice to people might lead to constructive dialogue is almost startling in its vindictiveness. No wonder the two sides can't resolve anything!
I think if you read the article again, without the outrage, it doesn't quite say what you've interpreted it to say. It says that two groups have a different definition of bigotry. What you're saying is not what they're hearing, and vice versa, and it's led to a vicious cycle that both parties need to work at in order to break. It cites examples where liberals have gone crazy with racist labeling. It talks about how how progressives on the cutting edge can't assume everyone else is right there with them. It also talks about what conservatives/Republicans need to do (keeping in mind that the article will mostly be read by progressives).
You seem focused on losing your right to call someone racist when they're walking down the street in a hood with a torch. This article isn't about those extremes, it's specifically about not taking the middle ground to those extremes.
Adding another stick to the fire of your outrage, here's an opinion piece in today's Star:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/2018/02/07/why-is-jordan-peterson-so-popular.html
"Some in the Canadian media have tried to explain away his popularity in terms of appeals to ignorance, sexism and bigotry. For example, Peterson has been referred to as a conservative hero with “dangerous views” in Chatelaine, “the stupid man’s smart person” in Maclean’s and “just another angry white guy” in The Globe and Mail.
But what is really happening is that Peterson has become the personification of the backlash to outrage and denunciation culture. A culture in which anyone that does not pledge complete fealty to all articles of faith of the progressive movement is labelled as a bigot that should be shamed to the fringes of society."
...hmm, that sounds awfully familiar...