Worked for O.J. when his attorneys questioned Mark Fuhrman. Probably had a substantial impact on the jury verdict.
https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/03/people-v-oj-sim...
1: https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-a...
“Silence is violence”
Scenario 1) someone who has bullied you in the past calls classmate a racist term. you stay silent for reasonable fear of reprisals.
Scenario 2) your boss says something overtly sexist. you know he is fairly temperamental, so stay silent because you want to keep your job so as to continue paying your bills.
Scenario 3) the government is jailing a certain ideological group you happen to somewhat agree with. you stay silent for fear of being included in that group and leaving your children parentless.
Do any of those sound like violence? Or do they sound like a reasonable course of action for an individual lacking power over the perpetrators?
I understand the instinct to condemn silence in the face of injustice. But the real world places real demands on people, some of which are more important than abstract notions of justice.
The question at hand is whether you believe isolated private communications to be representative of true nature.
I disagree. Why should associating with someone automatically mean you condone all of their beliefs/actions? You can disagree with parts you disagree with. Otherwise that's like a religious person saying they have to shun all democrats, because to associate with them is to condone abortion.
only if they are able to convince me, but even if they are completely certain their view is right but they can't explain why, then they will not be able to do that. if you want to change someones mind you need to understand and be able to explain why they are wrong.
Daryl Davis: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daryl_Davis
It does sound like they're making a claim to efficacy. It says "one by one managed to turn them away". That's the part I'm asking for clarification on.
I'm not saying that's not a valid point of conversation, I'm saying it comes across as off-context to the point where it seems a little like bait.
And way more people who socialize in KKK circles end up naturally moving toward racism and extremes of it. They change toward racism, because that is what choose to hear most of time.
It so happens that these are quite aggressive when voice disagreements with them, so socialising with the requires you to pretend you agree, at least on the edges. It works like any other bubble overtime, the anti-racists become crazy ennemies.
there is also quite a difference between people who socialize in kkk circles, and those who befriend individuals with the intent of changing their mind. the latter, for certain will not only socialize in kkk circles but also in other circles where they get the necessary grounding for their work to change those people.
i understand your point. from your perspective it makes sense. but i think you are missing something. pretending to agree does not make me believe what i pretend to. but i also think that pretending is not needed here, but rather it's important to empathize with my opponent, and then gently educate them to point out the flaws in their argument.
if i am working with someone to educate them and change their mind, then i am not joining their bubble. i am not giving up on my other circles either. rather i am breaking out of my bubble, and i help others break out of theirs. i end up with a better understanding of why they have their beliefs, and they hopefully get a better understanding why they might be wrong. we both gain something.
> pretending to agree does not make me believe what i pretend to.
It somewhat does. More importantly, as you pretend you agree, the people who happen to disagree will slowly move themselves out from your company, because listening to you agreeing is uncomfortable for them. And they get better treatment elsewhere.
Also the pull of extreme groups is not just rational where you point out flaws in thinking and logic will do rest. There is strong social (strong bonds to other extremeists) component and strong emotional component (it feels good to be superior, it feels good to see yourself as protector of race - a hero).
as far as i can tell, also from personal experience, education and friendship are the only ways to solve social issues that actually have a lasting effect.
as you pretend you agree, the people who happen to disagree will slowly move themselves out
possible, but as i said, pretending is not actually part of the strategy. you don't pretend, you empathize, but that doesn't mean you agree or even pretend to agree.
There is strong social component
which is broken by your friendship. you show that they can find better friends, and you are one of them.
This doesn't materially change if instead everyone finds out jack says these things to randos on a weird forum on weekends, unless jack decides to persuade people that those opinions are not representative of who he is. That would be an entirely different problem.
A religious person who hangs out with pro-choice individuals is condoning that its ok to be pro choice. That's not the same thing as saying pro choice is the right ideology, but that it is a tolerable difference of opinion. It's basically tautological. If you refuse to accept pro-choice individuals and then hang out with them, you're just an inconsistent person.
If you share employment with someone with a different religious background and that really bothers you, but you remain employed, you're ultimately deciding that being employed is more important to you than the virtue of your religious objections.
No amount of politicalization will erase the fact that social reputation is an important part of how humans socialize.
you seem to suggest that disagreeing with an opinion requires me to reject the person as a whole. but that is wrong. i can, even must accept you as a person, even if i violently disagree with your opinions. if i don't then it would be impossible for us to have any dialogue, and for me to learn and understand why you have this opinion, and also for you to learn and understand mine.
this idea that i must not associate with people who i disagree with is a core problem. we must get away from that otherwise we won't ever be able to resolve our differences.
virtue of your religious objections
there is no virtue in objecting to someone elses religion. that's just pure intolerance, which is something that needs to be eliminated.
That's not what I said. The difference is whether you see an difference of opinion or something that is so ideologically different that you can not tolerate their opinion.
> there is no virtue in objecting to someone elses religion. that's just pure intolerance, which is something that needs to be eliminated.
And social ostracization of aggressive, intolerable groups is an effective strategy
that still doesn't require me to stay away from them. if there is an opinion so bad that it actually is intolerable, (which the kkk obviously represents) then it is on us to do something about it. none of that affects whether i ought to socialize with these people or not. it only affects why. if my goal is to change them then i should be allowed to do that.
social ostracization of aggressive, intolerable groups is an effective strategy
effective to do what? to change their mind? i'd like to see some evidence for that, because i don't believe it. ostracization only strengthens people in their opinions. it may make then unable to spread their ideas, but it doesn't help them change.
ostracization also can end up hurting the wrong people. those who want to get out but can't because they don't have anyone helping them. it causes people who are actually unsure get stuck because they have noone showing them that there is another way. it causes people who realize that they are wrong being unable to get out because they have to fear to end up being completely isolated. they don't know that there will be others who welcome them. for all they know they have to expect to remain shunned because they are afraid could not convince anyone that they changed. (this is made even worse by todays climate of ostracizing people for things they said years ago. you said something racist on twitter once, and noone will ever believe that you learned your lesson for the rest of your life)
changing your opinion and then finding new friends looks easy from the outside, but very risky from the inside. finding new friends, and then have those friends help you get out is the only way.
it's up to us to be those friends.
a problem here is also who decides who ought to be ostracized. i should have the right to associate with whoever i want. it's not anyone's place to decide whether i am capable of avoiding to get influenced by those people or not.
if you are a close friend who knows me well, you may be able to tell if these people are getting to me or not and you can tell me, or help me avoid that influence. if you aren't already a friend, then your only option is to become my friend and find out. and if necessary help me understand that these people are influencing me. but if you ostracize me because i am not doing what you think i should, then you will achieve the opposite of what you set out to do.
you see, it's friends all the way down. and all the way up. the only way to change the world, is to change its people, one person at a time.
ostracization leads to disunity, and disunity leads to war. the well-being of the worlds society, its peace and security can not be achieved if we keep ostracizing each other.
That's up to you then. Shunning occurs on various levels.
If you want to talk to someone in the KKK to discuss the merits of their opinions, be my guest. If you want to employ KKK members, I'm leaving your team. If I'm your manager, I might even fire you for making such a boneheaded decision.
Giving everyone legitimacy is a childish idea easily abused by bad faith actors.
i might hire them after they renounce their kkk membership. are you ok with that?
where i am from, discrimination based on political opinions is illegal. on the other hand, political activism by employees is also not allowed. so i probably could hire someone who is not already known for their kkk membership, and you would not be allowed to fire me for that. they are allowed to stay as long as they are not becoming active. that scenario is unlikely to happen though because hiring friends is considered a form of corruption and strongly frowned upon. qualifications only.
but let's be clear. i am not giving someone legitimacy just by talking to them.
I think the ironic and not obvious answer here is that we stop committing people to the garbage heap of humanity via religious-like shunning. That reaction is what gives bad ideas power.
People are complicated. You can’t boil them down to a true nature that is “good” or “bad”. That’s “us vs them”. Only ideas can be judged that way and history decides what the bad ideas are.
There’s also religious-like forgiveness too. Some incredible acts of forgiveness were accomplished by very religious people. Pope John Paul II immediately forgave the person who almost killed him.
If there are no consequences for "acting like a Karen" what is the social incentive to stop behaving like an angry toddler anytime you don't get your way? Now extend this to even more extreme behavior like people who say you should be killed just for existing because you're an abomination. Is the argument that we should just get along and there shouldn't be any social consequences for that? Such a view would be incredibly naive at best.
On the flip side clearly people's views do sometimes change, people make mistakes, etc. Changing minds and hearts is a process, not a one-time event, so complete shunning for any perceived slight is rather extreme and can be counterproductive.
Yes. But it's a problem when different cultures coexist and see each other's good behavior as bad. Societies that kill their "abominations" are also enforcing their social norms. And they may even be right to do so given the environment they live in and their desire to continue existing as a society. Modern western culture has the luxury of being very tolerant of diverse types of people because we're so wealthy and safe, but many societies or their members are closer to the brink and the presence of too many ineffective or counter-productive members is an existential threat.
Yes, sometimes it is in racist or exaggerating context. But, most often, Karen is used to shut up woman who don't want to be doormat or is telling you off for good reason.
The goal is and as when men do the same - make them stop or at least minimize. Or vent frustration, sometimes.
Respectfully communicating feelings about somebody being horrible and hurting people rarely achieves anything. Cause horrible people hurting people don't care about your feelings.
Visiting a rapist who speaks freely, or privately just to you, about how much he enjoys rape certainly begs the question of why you're doing what you're doing.
Employing such a person who says these things speaks volumes about your concern for the feelings of people who feel threatened or have suffered sexual assault in the past, especially on your team.
All of this boils down to how much legitimacy we're willing to offer people based on what we know about them. If you want to offer the worst of the worst people just enough legitimacy to have a human conversation once in a while, I think that's defensible. If you think one's reputation doesn't have massive reprecussions on which social groups you welcome them into I think you're naive.
Although I suppose I was referring to "history is written by the victor". America is a great nation, but had the revolution failed, it would have been a disgraceful insurrection instead.
Even now the American revolution is kind of a non-event to the British. It is of less interest to them than the French revolution, which led to the Napoleonic wars and ultimately the rather drastic reshaping of European nations. George III is the villain in the American version of the story, but he's mostly known in the UK for his long, sad descent into madness.
They had their own Civil War in the 17th century, and even that tends to be glossed over in British history classes. They've just got so much more history than Americans do that it's just unfathomable. They don't really spare a lot of thought for the successful revolution, and an unsuccessful one would have been a footnote.
What do you mean by "stop committing people to the garbage heap of humanity via religious-like shunning"? Do you have a social group in mind that does not enforce its own social norms?
The best modern-day example of how we should all live is probably Daryl Davis...
"It's when the talking ceases that the ground becomes fertile for violence. If you spend five minutes with your worst enemy — it doesn't have to be about race, it could be about anything...you will find that you both have something in common."
https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinc...
I hear what you're saying, but I think Daryl Davis is an inexplicable exception, not the rule. I think most people know someone that has held onto truly shocking beliefs for decades, and hasn't responded to reason or compassion.
> held onto truly shocking beliefs
Can you see the extreme subjectivity in your comments? Why should your opinion of what's a norm or shocking be the ultimate judge? What if its your ideas which are actually shocking and violate the norms? For example, you should believe in a god because that's normal and if you're an exception, you need to be brought back into the fold of believers.
I'm okay with being extremely subjective and saying that's actually shocking. Claims that strong should be accompanied by at least circumstantial evidence. If you don't believe this is a real world view that people are trying to spread, look up Q-Anon.
To me, this does not seem logical (for the dictionary definition of "condone"). Would you mind explaining your reasoning?
I was pointing out that visiting a criminal does not directly imply that you condoned the actions that landed them in prison. However, if you know someone that is committing crimes, and you do nothing to stop them, then you do condone their behavior. I hope that clears it up?
Nobody would disagree with the individual right.
I would fire someone in a heartbeat if I heard they were a self identifying Neo Nazi or klansman, and they affirmed this when confronted. I don't want to work with nazis. I don't want my team to have to work with nazis. I don't want people to think I work at a company that knowingly employs nazis.
The converse is you need to offer a way for people to change. The point of social pressures like this is to get people to stop being the worst. We say "echo chamber" like its unilaterally bad, because in america 'muh freedom' means whatever the individual wants is what the individual is entitled to preach. But honestly there's a lot of basic social norms that are healthy to enforce, without embedding it in legal code.
That's immaterial. The teams rules prohibited any statements of that nature, in private or public.
The real question is whether such a rule is enforceable. If not, then every rule would have a limited scope. The article gives some examples of problems this would cause, e.g., sharing test answers, bullying, harassment.
If the rules only apply while on school property or in public, then why even have rules? The student can just flaunt the rules and claim "privacy" when challenged.
Almost any way that Institutions have to detect rule breaking outside of their purview involves serious privacy breaches.
If everything private is fair game, then I expect we should be able to depose all parties involved for any disparaging statements they have ever made. Then we can proceed with either cancelling the large majority of everyone, and prosecuting the rest for perjury. I suppose there is as third group who just don't say anything at all, and we should just go ahead and nail them for thoughtcrime.
Sure, there is a blurred line with posting something on a forum which is read in school, but this case clearly isn't that. The speech wasn't public and wasn't available at large.