
I wanted to understand why racists hated me, so I befriended Klansmen - evo_9
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/i-wanted-to-understand-why-racists-hated-me-so-i-befriended-klansmen/2017/09/29/c2f46cb8-a3af-11e7-b14f-f41773cd5a14_story.html?utm_term=.6a36e789bb86
======
kevmo
I grew up in the Deep South, and you can really change the way people feel by
being unflinchingly friendly. People who hold controversial opinions generally
know that they do (if they aren't crazy) and expect people to recoil at first
contact. When you don't recoil, it throws them and makes them think. At that
point, you are entering mind-changing territory. Then you start asking them
questions that allows them to do 80% of the talking. They will usually stumble
on their own logical fallacies at that point, and you have thus led the horse
to water, which is about all you can do.

Not very many people are very good at this. Which is unfortunate.

TL;DR When you get all worked up over the way people are talking, you have
allowed them to seize control of the debate and have generally lost the
opportunity to change that particular mind.

~~~
csallen
I finished reading Ben Franklin's autobiography earlier this year. He was
notorious for sparking (and usually winning) debates with the people around
him. After getting some negative feedback from a friend regarding just how
insufferable he was to be around, he adopted the Socratic method of asking
questions so that people would see their own folly.

Eventually, it got to the point where his acquaintances and coworkers would
refuse to answer even simple questions of his, out of fear that he'd follow up
with more questions that would prove them to be incompetent or illogical.

He later changed his methods to something you might read about in a book like
How to Win Friends and Influence People. Rather than leading people to see the
logical error of their ways, he moved toward displaying much more diffidence,
which allowed others to save face when changing their opinions. Phrases like
"certainly X" and "undoubtedly Y" became "If I'm not mistaken, X" and "I
imagine that Y."

That change worked out well for him throughout the course of his career in
winning many rich and powerful people (along with ordinary citizens, of which
he was one) to his side on various controversial issues of the day.

Another benefit was that he opened himself up to helpful suggestions and
feedback as well. Most people abhor argumentation, and will allow overly-
confident people to persist in whatever mistaken beliefs they hold. But when
you display humility, others feel safer telling you what they think of your
ideas.

~~~
emilga
Franklin also describes a technique whereby you don't directly tell someone
they're wrong, you simply tell them that in this particular case the
circumstances are different.

E.g., the bad way to do it:

Person A: "We should do X!"

Franklin: "You are wrong. We should do Y!"

E.g., the better way to do it:

Person A: "We should do X!"

Franklin: "You are, of course, right that X would work if P and Q were the
case, but here R is the situation. Don't you then agree that Y would work
better here?"

This way, your "opponent" gets to preserve the feeling of being right, or at
least avoids the defensiveness that follows being told you're wrong.

~~~
ufmace
Yes, the trouble is that such exchanges are often a battle of egos on both
sides. Person A has an egoic need to be right, and Person B has an egoic need
to prove person A wrong and themselves right.

No doubt this is an effective technique, you just have to be able to release
your own ego and also not directly challenge that of the other person.

~~~
andybak
I think the point is that this approach is meant to reduce the effect of ego
and allow the other person an easier way to change their position.

All public differences of opinion involve ego, status and other emotional
states. It's a case of finding a way to lessen their effect on all parties
(oneself included).

------
buyx
There is a fine line between collaboration and dialogue. In South Africa,
there were a significant percentage of oppressed people who tried to get along
with the (white supremecist) apartheid government. They participated in the
sham elections that gave them political scraps. They governed the Bantustans
that were used to deprive black people of citizenship by driving them into a
tiny proportion of the country.

The apartheid government ultimately was a creature of greed masquerading
behind an ideology. It enabled a part of the population to loot the wealth of
South Africa for its own gain, using others as a pool of cheap labour. It
deliberately, as a matter of state policy, gave blacks an inferior education,
so they could be “hewers of wood and drawers of water”. Yet it was always open
to dialogue, as long as that dialogue enabled it to survive on its own terms.

The apartheid government did finally capitulate, but only after it realised
that it was utterly alone and isolated and almost universally reviled, and the
collapse of world communism meant that it wouldn’t be shielded by its
erstwhile allies. FW De Klerk, the then leader of South Africa, boldly ended
apartheid, but has tended to equivocate about its evil. And many white South
Africans remain somewhat ambiguous, at best, about the evil it wrought. Would
white South Africans have eventually seen the light if they weren’t isolated
and treated as pariahs for much of the 1970’s and 80’s? I expect not.

Although I can admire the subject of this article for trying to reach out to
individual racists, care needs to be taken to not read too much into his
message. Evil ideologies still need to be condemned, unequivocally, since they
crave legitimacy, and are often not just “idealistic but misguided concepts in
the marketplace of ideas” but well thought out mechanisms for the exploitation
and oppression of others.

~~~
JacobJans
> There is a fine line between collaboration and dialogue.

I think this is a very important point that a lot of people don't quite get.

For example, I am a pacificist. When I tell this to people, they sometimes
assume I would stand aside and do nothing if a loved one was threatened with
violence.

In fact, the opposite is true: I would act aggressively and assertively (or I
hope I would).

Pacifist != Passive

Acting with compassion for those who hate you does not disarm your ability to
aggressively support and defend your rights. Really, in such a case, one
should strive to be increasingly effective.

The author of this article found a point of leverage that was effective in
achieving his goals. I don't think I'd call what he was doing "dialogue," even
though talking was part of it.

~~~
ggreer
> For example, I am a pacificist. When I tell this to people, they sometimes
> assume I would stand aside and do nothing if a loved one was threatened with
> violence.

This seems like an own-goal, as the popular perception of pacifism is just
that: _never_ using violence. I recommend not using the term on yourself, as
it paints the wrong picture in people's minds. If you define pacifism as "only
using violence in defense of self or loved ones", then that's totally
compatible with getting a concealed carry permit and carrying a gun in public–
not exactly most people's idea of pacifism.

~~~
0xcde4c3db
The error is in equating "doing something" with "using violence".

~~~
ggreer
A cryptic response. Besides running away (which is often not possible) what
other options are there?

~~~
e12e
Perhaps somewhat inaccurate wrt a direct threat against family, but this image
comes to mind:

[http://www.greanvillepost.com/wp-
content/uploads/2015/02/Tia...](http://www.greanvillepost.com/wp-
content/uploads/2015/02/Tiananmen-man-tank.jpg)

------
ballenf
The hardest part of his approach is the genuine respect he showed for the
racists. He approached them as reasonable and intelligent and let that work to
his benefit by essentially forcing them to deal with the resulting cognitive
dissonance in their heads.

The wrong lesson from this would be "being nice to racists" is somehow a
meaningfully important aspect of his approach. He didn't bake them cookies and
expect their racism to melt away. He showed them respect and didn't preach or
moralize to them. In fact, he didn't seem to directly confront the poisonous
beliefs at all.

His approach was the same as that of the most effective leaders.

So many social groups start from the premise of zero respect for those with
whom they disagree. Which is great for feeling superior to others, but not for
actually making a positive impact on the world around you.

~~~
digi_owl
Sorry if this comes out wrong, but it have read about a similar approach when
dealing with would be IS fighters.

~~~
jacobush
There really is no difference.

------
adora
The story of Derek Black is also interesting. A former white nationalist
(godfather was David Duke) who would later denounce his racist views after
befriending an Orthodox Jew.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/the-white-flight-
of-...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/the-white-flight-of-derek-
black/2016/10/15/ed5f906a-8f3b-11e6-a6a3-d50061aa9fae_story.html)

[https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/26/opinion/sunday/why-i-
left...](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/26/opinion/sunday/why-i-left-white-
nationalism.html)

[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/22/podcasts/the-daily-
transc...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/22/podcasts/the-daily-transcript-
derek-black.html)

~~~
3131s
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan_Phelps-
Roper](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan_Phelps-Roper)

The same was true for Megan Phelps-Roper, a former member of the infamous
Westboro Baptist Church. She explained in a TED talk that ultimately after
being treated with respect by the people she hated, she could not reconcile
her hatred of them with those experiences.

" _Sometimes the conversation even bled into real life. People I 'd sparred
with on Twitter would come out to the picket line to see me when I protested
in their city. A man named David was one such person. He ran a blog called
"Jewlicious," and after several months of heated but friendly arguments
online, he came out to see me at a picket in New Orleans. He brought me a
Middle Eastern dessert from Jerusalem, where he lives, and I brought him
kosher chocolate and held a "God hates Jews" sign._"

" _It took time, but eventually these conversations planted seeds of doubt in
me. My friends on Twitter took the time to understand Westboro 's doctrines,
and in doing so, they were able to find inconsistencies I'd missed my entire
life. Why did we advocate the death penalty for gays when Jesus said, "Let he
who is without sin cast the first stone?" How could we claim to love our
neighbor while at the same time praying for God to destroy them? The truth is
that the care shown to me by these strangers on the internet was itself a
contradiction. It was growing evidence that people on the other side were not
the demons I'd been led to believe._"

[https://www.ted.com/talks/megan_phelps_roper_i_grew_up_in_th...](https://www.ted.com/talks/megan_phelps_roper_i_grew_up_in_the_westboro_baptist_church_here_s_why_i_left/transcript)

I don't normally like TED talks but hers was pretty interesting.

~~~
musage
Pretty interesting is putting it mildly. Thanks for posting that.

 _But we know:_

 _Even hate against that which is low_

 _Disfigures the face._

 _Even anger over injustice_

 _Makes the voice coarse. Oh, we_

 _Who wanted to prepare the soil for friendliness_

 _Were unable to be friendly ourselves._

\-- Bertolt Brecht

------
Animats
It's hard to find the Klan online if you use Google. Google is ranking the
Southern Poverty Law Center first and the Klan's sites are not on the first
page. Bing is more useful:

    
    
        http://kkk.com/
    
        http://www.theuka.us/
    

Stormfront is back:
"[https://www.stormfront.org"](https://www.stormfront.org"). They transferred
their domain from Network Solutions to Tucows. Stormfront is just a forum
system now. It was originally David Duke's support organization, but he's out
of Congress and the Klan, and not doing much with it.

The people posting there aren't evil. They're scared. Read "The destruction of
white America from the perspective of a rural white man."[1] His town and life
were ruined when the factories closed, unable to compete with cheap imports.
_" The small town that I grew up in would be radically altered and I would
experience much change in my personal life as a result of these globalist
policies. The company for which my mother worked would move south of the
border to Mexico. The company for which my father worked would see its doors
close permanently. My reasonably prosperous family in rural America would
eventually fall into destitution and dissolve. My parents would split up (in
part due to these financial struggles) and I would move in with my
grandmother."_

This is how Trump was elected.

[1] [https://altright.com/2017/09/21/the-destruction-of-white-
ame...](https://altright.com/2017/09/21/the-destruction-of-white-america-from-
the-perspective-of-a-rural-white-man/)

~~~
PhasmaFelis
> _" The small town that I grew up in would be radically altered and I would
> experience much change in my personal life as a result of these globalist
> policies. The company for which my mother worked would move south of the
> border to Mexico."_

I can see the impetus for anti-globalism there, but it baffles me when, for
example, people use "all the jobs went to Mexico" as a justification to hate
Mexicans. Wouldn't it make more sense to hate the white American managers and
bureaucrats who decided to move the factories?

I see the same thing in housing protests. Gentrification sucks, but why blame
yuppies just looking for a decent home rather than the landlords who are
actually raising the rent?

~~~
musage
> Gentrification sucks, but why blame yuppies just looking for a decent home

Because they're gladly paying a higher rent because they personally can afford
it. That's what makes raising rents (to an unreasonable degree) possible. I
think it's fine for rich people to want to move into "cool" neighborhoods,
just have some solidarity and tact. There's plenty of ways to spend money, and
the richer you are the better you'll be able to cope to have an okay flat for
a normal rent, instead of accepting something that was half-heartedly
modernized _just_ to raise rent a lot.

> rather than the landlords who are actually raising the rent?

You can can only blame the party paying the rent for paying the rent, and only
the party trying to raise the rent for trying to raise the rent. Can you show
me anyone holding greedy landlords blameless while blaming the yuppies for
enabling them? You said you "see" this thing, after all. Where?

------
dang
This is the rare case of a submission that looks like flamebait and really
isn't, so I've turned off the flags on it. It's a fascinating story that
easily clears the bar for being intellectually interesting, and therefore on
topic for HN. Please discuss what's interesting and don't go into flamewar.

Hints: to discuss what's interesting, read the article and respond to what's
specific about it. To avoid flamewar, if your comment could just as easily be
posted to any thread about race, and especially if you're posting to smite
enemies rather than learn new things together, stop and read
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)
instead.

~~~
matt4077
As it happens, it is also the rare story on the subject that plays exactly to
the opinion that the HN community already holds; namely that it is more
effective to engage even the most vile theories in measured debate, and that
any attempt to reduce the publicity that, for example, racists get will only
make their ideology spread faster.

The irony being that sometimes people opposing that theory are to be found at
the bottom of the threat, flagged and dead. But I'm assuming that to be the
work of people agreeing with them, trying to empower them.

Meanwhile, a writer as mainstream as Ta-Nehisi Coates
([https://www.theatlantic.com/author/ta-nehisi-
coates/](https://www.theatlantic.com/author/ta-nehisi-coates/)) can write all
the #1 bestsellers he likes on the subject, but is considered to be
"flamebait" here.

~~~
dang
Well there's some truth to that, but I don't agree with how you interpret it.
Unfortunately the question gets so complicated so quickly that I don't know
how to write about it in an internet comment. So I'll respond with some things
I do know how to say.

Perceptions of "the opinion the HN community holds" are in the eye of the
beholder. If you don't believe me, take a look at
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15307915](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15307915)
and
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15032682](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15032682)
and plenty more at
[https://hn.algolia.com/?query=13110004&sort=byDate&prefix&pa...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=13110004&sort=byDate&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=comment).

People see X they don't like and conclude that "the community endorses X".
Advanced version: "the moderators endorse X". In fact this is not how HN
works—the opposite of X is here too, it just doesn't get noticed the same way.
Since X varies with the observer, this isn't specific to any political view.

You wrote your comment in the combative style that is popular on the internet.
From past exchanges, I'm pretty sure you have HN's best interests at heart as
well as wanting there to be more good in the world. No argument there! The
trouble with the combative style is not that the community (or moderators)
disagree with the content ideologically. It's that in this style one comes out
swinging and assumes bad faith. That's bad for good conversation, which is
really all we're hoping for.

Ideological combat insta-sorts the world into enemies vs. fellows and goes to
war against the former. Indeed that's all it does—it's always on a war
footing, and we can know how it has been taking over online. We're
(hopelessly?) hoping to avoid that on HN. Is that because we hold regressive
views about race or are milquetoast centrists? No, it's because we'd like to
have an internet forum that isn't stupid, which is what scorched earth leads
to.

HN's goal is to be interesting, which means being unpredictable, which means
not saying the same things over and over. Ideological battle has a different
goal and _requires_ saying the same things over and over. That is why the two
are incompatible; it's not because HN promotes ideology not-X where you favor
X.

I'm sure we could do better and if you know how, I'd love to learn. But we
need to agree that HN's goal is to gratify intellectual curiosity [2]. I think
it's fair for there to be different forums that optimize for different goals,
don't you? That's this one's.

1\.
[https://hn.algolia.com/?query=by:dang%20cognitive%20bias&sor...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=by:dang%20cognitive%20bias&sort=byDate&prefix=false&page=0&dateRange=all&type=comment)

2\.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html),
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html)

~~~
lovich
I'd like add evidence to your point that hn has multiple viewpoints. I am
pretty close to the communist/socialist side of politics and find many people
here who agree with me. I also find people like 'yummyfajitas who are on the
opposite side of the political spectrum, and while he makes posts that make my
blood boil they are well reasoned enough that I've upvoted him more often than
not

------
AaronFriel
I've tried this, and sometimes it's worked. When it has, it's usually when I'm
part of the group that's hated by someone. As in this article, or in my
personal experience talking with people biased against atheists or liberals, I
was able to make headway by demonstrating that I am not the idea of what they
hate.

I have had absolutely no progress with this when talking about homophobia,
racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, or anti-immigrant biases. I'm a
straight white male with no Jewish heritage in sight and an nth generation
German-Irish American. I've tried, in earnest, to apply the same "killing them
with kindness" philosophy to folks to people who hold abhorrent views towards
groups that aren't like me, and it's failed miserably. The cop-out from the
other party is that being liberal, I'm brainwashed or following my mainstream
media marching orders or something to that effect. That my impression and my
testimony that black people aren't lazy, that women are not less capable
managers and programmers, et cetera., is irrelevant to the person I'm arguing
with. I'm not black/Latino, I'm not a woman, I'm not able to demonstrate those
things in a way that is convincing.

This is deeply disconcerting to me, because it seems allyship helps in some
cases (LGBT movement) but from testimony I've heard at conferences, the best
way to change a homophobic or transphobic person's mind is to first, be their
friend or family member, and second, come out as LGBT. The monumental success
of acceptance of the LGBT movement seems to be almost entirely from
encouraging people to come out to their friends and family members. Without
downplaying it too much, I think that the language of allyship is primarily
helpful at convincing people in power that they can be part of that movement,
but it wasn't useful in changing people's minds.

My question to Hacker News is: why should the burden be on me, someone who is
opposed to the KKK and the resurgent white nationalism in this country, to
befriend people? And is there any evidence (or personal testimony from other
commenters) that this sort of thing works when not part of the targeted
minority?

Because I am exhausted. Again, I want to reiterate: "killing with kindness"
was tremendously successful for me when I was dealing with people that didn't
like some group identity I shared: liberalism, secularism. But it utterly
fails when I try to talk to say, a racist friend of a family member who calls
Colin Kaepernick "caperdink" and Barack Obama "obummer". Kindness doesn't seem
to work when as a white man, they expect me to be kind.

~~~
noobermin
It actually isn't incumbent on you to do it. As a non-white person, it isn't
incumbent on me to be a model minority either. What you have to understand is
what the author did is above and beyond the call of duty (if there is any),
and as you have found, there are mixed results when you aren't the object of
hate.

I know this is not a popular opinion here amongst most HNers and probably not
for you, but you can't change a majority of people. Some people will never
agree with you, despite your best efforts. Nonetheless, you just need to shave
off a sufficient amount to win politically and in terms of policy. People
forget Trump's win was a marginal one, a couple of thousand across a handful
of states. In many ways, his victory was just that, convincing a handful to
vote for him, while a large number of people on the left were suppressed for
various reasons.

~~~
yazaddaruvala
May I ask, as a minority member to a minority member:

Why do you feel like other people hate you or your "kind"?

I'd argue its because they hold some pre-existing assumptions about you.

Do you not feel like giving up on these "haters" is because you've got a pre-
existing assumption about them? Specifically that more-or-less they are the
type of people who will always hate?

Their assumptions cause them to not want you around them. Your assumptions
cause you to not want to be around them. Aren't those both identical? Aren't
they both negative beliefs?

You might not be able to change anyone else mind, but you are the only person
who can change yours. It is definitely more taxing, and I may be wrong, but
isn't it energy well spent, to hold onto a positive belief over a negative
one?

~~~
noobermin
>Why do you feel like other people hate you or your "kind"?

In the aggregate, stereotypes, negative towards me and positive towards
themselves. Essentially what you say in your next sentence, although I'd argue
there are unfairly positive stereotypes for themselves too that place them in
a better place than others. Might be like the "positive self-illusions" most
healthy people have on a personal level[0].

>Do you not feel like giving up on these "haters" is because you've got a pre-
existing assumption about them? Specifically that more-or-less they are the
type of people who will always hate?

The difference here is I don't condemn a particular group of people or
adherents to an ideology or set of nationals, _all people_ are sticky in their
pre-conceived notions. This has been demonstrated by psychological research,
and I've run into this issue with all people I've met in my life, and
surprise, not just over politics, but over all issues: choice of editor,
choice of psuedocolor colormap, choice of programming language, etc. The
sooner in life in general you stop trying to "save" people, the happier you
become.

The subtext here I feel is that you are arguing racial stereotypes are in the
same category as research approved by psychologists, but this is such a
category error; it's like saying a page and a book are the same because they
both have words. A racial stereotype is much lazier than one that is born
through statistics, for example.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_illusions#Benefits_an...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_illusions#Benefits_and_liabilities)

------
jfaucett
I know this post will probably get flagged because it is so political. Still,
I think this article is something everyone needs to read, especially in the
current political climate where identity politics and group think have pitted
groups of people against one another and spurred them to violence all over the
western world.

This article shows the classical liberal values of discussion and dialogue are
so important to making progress.

~~~
Mikeb85
> This article shows the classical liberal values of discussion and dialogue
> are so important to making progress.

Values which are disappearing on the "left".

I recently lost a friend (extreme lefty) for saying that Trump was elected
because of the socio-economic situation of poor white voters in the US. He
just railed on about how I was racist for daring to say that the Trump
phenomenon is anything more than Americans being a bunch of Klansmen...

Oh well, when discussion is lost, you wind up with things like Brexit,
nationalism rising in Europe (look at how the election in Catalonia is going
today), etc..., when those people whose opinions you previously ignored decide
they've had enough.

Edit - deleted the first edit.

~~~
FussyZeus
> Oh well, when discussion is lost, you wind up with things like Brexit,
> nationalism rising in Europe (look at how the election in Catalonia is going
> today), etc..., when those people whose opinions you previously ignored
> decide they've had enough.

THIS. Grew up in the midwest, could've told the coastal liberals that their
nonstop (and unnecessary) attacks on everything even slightly valued by the
flyover states was going to cost them someday. They didn't want to hear it.

~~~
QAPereo
Well you sure showed us, with this brilliant act of communal decapitation.
Never mind that the people who feel hurt the most are hurting themselves the
most, you're making a _point_ or something...

Seriously, if your narrative for political change is little more than hurt
feelings, maybe the "other" isn't the problem. This article should have at
least showed you that putting aside the petty can have real impacts on both
parties.

~~~
FussyZeus
Firstly I'm not a supporter of this Nationalist America First agenda, though
the fact that simply because I'm willing to non-judgmentally listen to their
side and hear their complaints and say yeah, those things are a problem causes
you to react with hostility kind of shows my point well, so thanks.

Secondly, this is not "hurt feelings," not that something -just- being
emotionally abusive and nothing else should be an excuse for pretending it
isn't a problem, but we'll go with that anyways. No, this is the fact that the
middle state's economies have been struggling for years, and that was before
the 2008 housing crash, which the cities and coasts have recovered fairly well
from, but has left everyone else largely in the cold. Now, it's true that a
lot of those issues can be fairly directly traced to the local governments and
their bad decisions; some cities, for example Chattanooga, have done extremely
well at modernizing. But to pretend that the constant drumbeat of the culture
that being in the flyover states (itself a term of derision) is terrible, that
everything they believe is dumb, that they're uneducated prudes and all the
rest of it has caused an incredible cultural scar between the rural and urban
portions of the nation. And successes like Chattanooga are _in spite of_ , not
_because of_ , that divide.

~~~
Mikeb85
> Firstly I'm not a supporter of this Nationalist America First agenda

What a world we live in, where a government putting their own people first is
considered a bad or controversial thing...

------
Aloha
I've long said that progress involves changing individual hearts and minds
more than just a political process - the political process is what happens
after you've changed hearts and minds.

We saw it with the civil rights movement, we saw it with the gay rights
movement, and we're going to see at some point with the trans rights movement
too.

Merely showing up and demanding rights isnt enough, you need to convince
people that their needs are bound up with yours.

------
Overtonwindow
I grew up in the south and I think people are genuinely polite to each other.
African Americans, redneck racists, everyone is polite in public, but the bad
stuff comes out in private, in groups and friendships. That's where the hate
festers.

------
pgodzin
Daryl Davis had a really interesting AMA:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/70vcr0/im_daryl_davis...](https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/70vcr0/im_daryl_davis_a_black_musician_here_to_discuss/)

~~~
mlinksva
I've seen stories about Davis in the past but never read closely, though I've
idly wondered how much danger he has been in.

A couple questions ask about this and it seems he has been attacked a few
times.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/70vcr0/im_daryl_davis...](https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/70vcr0/im_daryl_davis_a_black_musician_here_to_discuss/dn64fba/)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/70vcr0/im_daryl_davis...](https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/70vcr0/im_daryl_davis_a_black_musician_here_to_discuss/dn6485e/)

I'm not sure where the quote comes from, but
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daryl_Davis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daryl_Davis)
says:

> However, not all Klan members were receptive to Davis's advances. Some
> reacted with anger or even violence. Davis stated, "I was not seriously
> injured. I've faced knives and guns and of course fists. I've had to
> physically fight upon occasion, but that is not my first resort. I did not
> carry any weapons to my interviews. On one occasion, it was only one
> Klansman who attacked me. On another, it was 3 of them. I won, both
> physically on the street and legally in court."

I would be too scared to do what he has done, even as a white gentile. The
more physical distance between me and hate group adherents, the better. But
hats off to Davis and anyone braver than me.

------
trcollinson
This might not be the right place to ask this but I respect the opinion of
people who read and post on HN.

I don't believe I am racist or sexist. I like to believe that I love everyone.
I care about people. I don't want to look at gender or race or sexual
orientation or any other differentiator when I get to know someone, or ever. I
don't want to judge others. I want people to have equal rights. I want people
to live happily, healthy, and safely.

But, I am a highly paid middle class white male in the US. I want to know that
I am helping to bring about this equality and lack of judgement. I see
articles being advertised in the middle of the parent article like "What do
black people have to lose under Trump? A lot" and I think "How can that be
possible?" Then I realize it is no doubt completely possible. And I know my
opinion doesn't matter much but I don't want that to happen. I want people to
have equal rights. I want people to feel safe, happy, and healthy. But my
desire is not enough.

I don't have an answer to this problem. I don't have some ulterior Motive.
This is a bit of a rant against myself. I'm upset with myself that I don't
know what to do to make it better. Maybe someone here will know.

~~~
tboyd47
I think the easiest thing to do is just be educated in the facts and able to
defend your views without getting caught up in the political rhetoric of the
day.

A lot of racism is just ignorance and callousness towards others, combined
with a lack of resolve to do what's right, which is really true about all of
us to a degree. People feel like they have enough to worry about without
others' problems. Also when you expose racism you are exposing the nasty
underbelly of this country's history (assuming you're American), which is hard
for people to handle. People will make some of the most embarrassing and
extreme statements when confronted about race. I believe that's because the
topic puts them in a state of distress.

I try and have the mindset of helping and educating people rather than judging
them or censoring them. After all, if you are saying racist stuff, it is _you_
who has the problem and no one necessarily has to say anything. It's like
telling someone they still have a sticker on their shirt. You are really doing
them a favor so if they don't want a favor, there's no harm in just leaving
them alone. Like you said, I don't have all the answers and certainly am no
Daryl Davis but I think about this stuff a lot and find myself in a lot of
debates about it with family and friends.

------
belorn
Through this story, I get reminded how many times I see discussion being shut
down by the phrase "As part of group X, you are not allowed to have an opinion
about Y".

Talking relieve tensions between groups. It builds understanding. It one of
the things in this world that can change how a individual think. Its nice to
read such success story.

------
BrandoElFollito
I witnessed onece how approaching people with genuine openness helps.

I was in Aix-en-Provence (south of France) and got lost on the outskirts of
the city. I waked into a "cité", which is a large area of block of flags, poor
and full of drugs and angry people.

I walked to a group, the tension was obvious but I kept on walking and
approched them with a simple question about how to get to downtown, and (most
importantly), what THEY think is the best way to get there. A normal person
talking with normal people.

Not only they showed me the way (after arguing about the best one for 10
minutes) but hopped into a car to drive me there.

Sometimes treating peooke genuinely kindky goes a long way.

------
40acres
No thanks. Look, I understand where this guy is guy is coming from, but as a
black man the last place you'd find me is near a self proclaimed Klansman.

------
tacomonstrous
It's not clear to me from this article that the author ever understood why
they hated him. From this account, it seems as if he just kept hanging out
with them for decades till they magically weren't hateful any more. Not sure
if this is very scalable.

~~~
tboyd47
Research more about his style and approach. He goes to great lengths to
understand their views before meeting them. In his AMA he mentioned that he
would even hold debates with himself in the mirror, representing his own
opponent. Extraordinary stuff.

~~~
peoplewindow
That's great, but I agree with the OP - I expected, given the headline, to
find out why the Klansmen hated him. But the article doesn't actually say. In
fact it doesn't give a voice to the Klansmen at all. It just says: I went and
talked to them and they became friends. Eventually they changed and gave me
their robes.

Nice story and I'm sure it's true. But it didn't help me understand the KKK
any better, which is a shame.

~~~
antod
As far as I can tell, the point is that there was NO actual reason why they
hated him apart from they didn't know him. Once they knew him, they didn't
hate him.

The ones that changed their point of view, eventually just realised they had
no remaining reason to hate him. And by extension it was irrational to
automatically hate every other black person they didn't know yet.

It was his attempts to understand them, that helped some of them understand
him. As he points out though, there were plenty of klan members that this
didn't work out with though.

It obviously takes some level of self awareness/reflection to change your mind
like that.

------
js2
The author of this piece was interviewed on All Things Considered about a
month ago.

[http://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-
convince...](http://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-
convinced-200-ku-klux-klan-members-to-give-up-their-robes)

------
userbinator
Oddly enough, the pictures of Daryl in the article seem to show he has a
lighter skin colour than the other pictures of him you can find elsewhere...
in case anyone else is wondering whether that may have been a factor in his
successful relations.

------
HillaryBriss
Daryl Davis's singular story is courageous, fantastic and inspiring. He has
risen way, way above an average dork like me.

------
grondilu
> How could anybody hate me when they didn’t even know me?

That's an easy question to answer. People are not islands. They conform to
stereotypes, culture, so at least to some degree one can group people into
common patterns of behaviors and values. And people can hate some of those
patterns.

------
_raoulcousins
This reminded me of the podcast Conversations with People Who Hate Me:
[http://www.dylanmarron.com/podcast/](http://www.dylanmarron.com/podcast/)

------
gdubs
Only mentioned in the byline, but there's a documentary out with Daryl:

[http://accidentalcourtesy.com](http://accidentalcourtesy.com)

------
gizmodo59
In many cases people just grew up to be and found a community where they are
accepted. A dialogue with them like how it has been mentioned in the article
is all it takes.

------
z3t4
I think people join gangs and clans because they want to get respect and feel
appreciated. If you give them that, the clan/gang is no longer needed.

------
zaroth
What an incredible collection -- to keep the masks and robes of the people he
has led to renounce their membership!

------
techrich
He did a documentary on netflix.

------
hirundo
When an Antifa member punches someone who they identify as a white
nationalist, at best they can make them shut up for a while. At worst the
violence is reciprocated disproportionately. If instead the Antifa would
attempt to befriend that person and to have good faith dialogues with them,
they would at least have the potential to actually reduce racism, and reduce
hatred on both sides.

Ideally, the result could be one less Nazi puncher _and_ one less Nazi. And
with dialog, maybe they'd discover that not every political disagreement
reveals a "white nationalist".

But I suspect that for many, that would be a whole lot less fun.

~~~
Avshalom
Which puts all the onus on the "not a fucking Nazi" half (not actually half
antifa is wildly outnumbered) of the equation while not holding the "fucking
Nazi" half to any standards re: not murdering people.

Contrarily this story starts out with the KKK member approaching and being
civil to the black man.

~~~
drblast
Antifa and Nazis are both extreme fringe groups and not representative of a
majority of society.

It would behoove everyone to think about that when reading about them; both
extremes receive an amount of attention disproportionate to their actual
amount of influence.

And by punching the Nazi, now it's a major news story with two "equal" sides
instead of a footnote about a crazy dude in the subway.

~~~
yardie
Well neo-nazis believe that they are the alpha race and everyone else is
subhuman/inferior. And who worships a regime that tried to exterminate quite a
few of them. I’m not sure what the equal and opposite extreme to that is.

This is like the equivocating 45 is currently doing by framing fascists and
antifascists as opposite sides of the coin.

~~~
rpiguy
Antifa believe they are morally superior to everyone else and use it to
justify violence and oppression, so it is a fairly appropriate comparison. I
can easily see the movement turn to killing if left unchecked.

~~~
HillaryBriss
interesting to hear Antifa feel they are ethically superior to everyone else.

my take has been that Antifa feel they are ethically superior to
conservative/nazi/white supremacist/KKK demonstrators and that _violence is
the best policy_.

it seems to me that _most_ special interest groups in the US feel they are
ethically superior to others, but they do not feel that violence is an
acceptable, much less _the best_ policy.

------
te_chris
It's definitely good to talk to people like this, but it needs to be carrot
and stick: their organisations need to be ostracised and labelled as the
hateful, racist hellholes that they are, while people of any background still
treat each other with respect in their communities.

The biggest risk with bringing the members of these organisations in out of
the cold is that this might normalise the organisations and ideologies without
actually destroying anything. E.g. like having a POTUS who equivocates over
their behaviour.

~~~
gallerdude
I disagree. We get nowhere by making fun of other people or taking the moral
high-ground. Progress comes by having real conversations with others, no
matter how much we disagree with what they have to say. It's easy and fun to
call someone racist and walk away, but the right thing to do is having them
explain how they feel and just talking to them about it.

I also don't understand how normalization is an issue? We get nowhere by
censoring the our least favorite ideas in society. We get somewhere by
bringing them out, and talking about why we disagree with the points made, in
a respectful manner.

Relevant article from The Onion: [http://www.theonion.com/article/former-
conservative-recalls-...](http://www.theonion.com/article/former-conservative-
recalls-belittling-tirade-coll-56825)

~~~
justin66
> We get somewhere by bringing them out, and talking about why we disagree
> with the points made, in a respectful manner.

It's not as if Neo-Nazis are "making points."

