Comment by msla
5 years ago
You're painting a rosy picture. For example, how many Blacks were ever friends with Klansmen? How many Jews were friends with Nazis? If someone's opinions include the idea that I'm less than human, I can't be friends with them. It's impossible to bridge that gap if the other side sees me as an animal, or a monster, or an enemy agent actively working to destroy the country, if not the world.
I doubt there are any more hate groups now than there ever were; the difference is, these days, people are more willing to call them out for being what they are.
Daryl Davis, an African-American man, famously attended KKK rallies, befriended Klansmen, and over the course of his life helped persuade over 200 Klansmen to give up their robes. He did what you claim is impossible and I can't imagine a better role model.
Well, how many Klansmen attended Black churches and universities, befriending Black folks all the while and... uh... ok, I can't really see the great outcome here other than the Klansman not being a Klansman anymore.
I'm proud you could come up with one guy who was saintly. For the rest of us non-saintly people, it's pretty tough to maintain and tend friendships with people who think we're bad, immoral, subhuman, or otherwise less than. Just makes conversation hard to keep up!
That is however not how civil rights movement worked in general. And actual blacks were beaten up or worst by klan. It was not something that would be exceptional either. The violence in particular around voting suppression was very real and not just about how people feel. It was not just about personal hate, or was more rational about who is going to rule the place.
The person you responded to asked how many. The answer is that not many. And it is not like having black friends meant you won't be racist. Nor having wife or mom you like prevents mysoginy. Personal relationships have part only up to the point.
That being said, some nazi members had a Jew they personally liked or protected. It dis mot stopped genocide.
That's a great accomplishment. However, I think the point is that we (as a society) should recognize and stand up for our oppressed people. Otherwise, we're placing the burden on the oppressed to "take the high road" and, essentially, fight an uphill battle.
[flagged]
> someone saying that describing software as "sexy" is sexist and contributes to women not wanting to work in tech jobs. I think you're painting a rosy picture where people are only upset at actual hate groups, and not using whatever benign words the "allies" have decided are unacceptable.
And I think _you're_ painting a picture wherein "people who are amplifying minority perspectives in order to help society be more inclusive" are in fact nefariously scheming to control a cultural narrative for...reasons?
There is certainly a line beyond which "Excessive Political Correctness" is unreasonable, unhelpful, unproductive, and disconnected from actual people's experiences. But the latter of these examples, at least, strikes me as a perfectly reasonable piece of feedback. I don't personally find the former to be offensive, but at the same time - I have no reason to disagree with the person making that claim. If they're offended by it, that is a _fact_. It's up to me whether I choose to act on that fact. Personally, I don't consider the words "idiot" or "sexy" to be important enough to insist upon using them, when others have told me that the usage hurts them.
Say that someone is intentionally misrepresenting the situation, and is trying to pressure you into stopping using a particular word even though no-one is truly hurt or impacted by it. What's the failure case if you listen to them? You stop using a word. Big whoop. What's the failure case if you _don't_ listen to them? You continue to hurt and offend people. This seems both more likely and more impactful than the other failure case - so, to me, the choice is clear.
Your last paragraph is addressed in full by the OPs link. Social interactions become more and more meek and stilted because the risk of "offending someone" is always there (and I'd argue, approaches 1 over time). What's driving it is different - social pressure rather than megacorp data mining, but the effect and implications are identical and no less pernicious.
At some point there is a line beyond which if someone is "offended", the problem is with them and them alone. I'd argue policing words like "idiot" (esp. when not directed at someone as an insult) is squarely on the wrong side.
8 replies →
It’s easy for the choice to be clear when you are entirely missing the point. What are the consequences of using these newly offensive words? What if you used the word but had no idea it was offensive? And how do we police that in a world where more and more things are offensive?
1 reply →
[flagged]
OK, try this: How many gays were/are friends with Southern Baptists?
It's the same dynamic, even though Southern Baptists are more mainstream.
Probably a lot? I can't speak to that question specifically, since there aren't many Baptists in my area, but the Catholic Church leadership has a similarly anti-gay message to the SBC and lots of gay people are friends with Catholics.
1 reply →
My religious beliefs are very strict, and I'm very good friends with people that don't follow my religious views.
Some of my friends have done things that my religion considers murder, adultery and sexual abuse.
My life is better for their friendship. Hopefully they appreciate me as well.
No it’s not. Southern baptists don’t hate gay people, they hate gayness and want to save you from eternal hellfire. Of course it’s asinine and backwards but it’s completely different than nazis and klansmen.