
Why I Left White Nationalism - diogofranco
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/26/opinion/sunday/why-i-left-white-nationalism.html
======
matthewmacleod
_Through many talks with devoted and diverse people there — people who chose
to invite me into their dorms and conversations rather than ostracize me — I
began to realize the damage I had done._

I suppose this is the key. No group will be convinced by being publicly
ostracised or relentlessly attacked; that's going to do nothing but further
entrench division. But it's difficult to figure out steps that one can take as
an individual to help.

~~~
luso_brazilian
This cannot be stressed enough.

There are plenty of behaviors that people, specially young people going
through the "rebellious" phase of their lives, engage for the shock value, for
the "I'm the only sane man among sheeps" feeling and that can usually be
explained by the lack of maturity and contact with the real world.

The only result that comes with ostracizing these people is to throw them at
the arms of the only groups that will accept them with open arms: people
seriously sharing the same ideology and that will welcome this person with
open arms.

The real solution to ignorance is not to cut the ignorant from the flock but
to show them the errors on their ways.

People tend to grow out of these phases and helping them out in that path
instead of cutting them and punishing them is a much better way to deal with
this problem.

~~~
scrollaway
There's very little that makes me as sad as seeing extremist behaviour become
the norm on both sides of the aisle. Seeing people not listen to each other
and fighting empty devils.

I first saw it with gamergate a while back. As someone very close to the games
industry, and in games media back then, I was very interested by the movement
(which, at the time anyway, wanted to put a spotlight on corruption in games
media)... then after it did some good, it turned into a "hunt all the SJWs"
parody of itself and very much became an example of what the alt-right is
today.

What happened there was simply people not listening... and instead of
listening, sharing whatever story fell in line with the narrative. Twitter
makes it easy to block dissenting opinions. Reddit naturally silences
disagreement with downvotes. Facebook just natively doesn't show you the stuff
you don't like. Social media is a fucking scourge, I swear.

As the movement becomes more and more extreme, it attracts more and more
extreme people and the moderates naturally leave (or convert), as they have no
way to fight the trend back on a platform that amplifies the majority.

And of course both "sides" in a fight become involved in a cherry-picking
fight of who can find the _worst_ of the other's community and showcase it as
proof of how relentlessly _EVIL_ the "other side" is. Because, you know,
everybody's like that, right?

It's fucking impossible to be a moderate nowadays. This is probably the main
reason why I enjoy commenting on HN, where discussion is possible (probably
because of details such as upvote counts not showing and a really nice sorting
algorithm). Though it has its own issues with community flagging - Take this
post for example:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12977633](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12977633)
(A moderate article that looked at issues on the left, flagged out despite
100+ upvotes)

------
ambulancechaser
> Through many talks with devoted and diverse people there — people who chose
> to invite me into their dorms and conversations rather than ostracize me — I
> began to realize the damage I had done.

> That kind of persuasion happens in person-to-person interactions and it
> requires a lot of honest listening on both sides. For me, the conversations
> that led me to change my views started because I couldn’t understand why
> anyone would fear me. I thought I was only doing what was right and
> defending those I loved.

These two quotes kinda resonate with me. I'm no longer on a college campus and
can only take an impression from afar. But it seems like these two scenarios
are more and more infrequent. It seems like now you must show that you have
not been "tainted" by listening to someone with "reprehensible" opinions. This
article states that people who didn't convulse at the mere thought of him, but
sat down and talked to him are the reason why he drifted from his ideology.
Now, it seems like you could be ostracized yourself for even visiting this
person in their dorm room.

~~~
norea-armozel
I think you're drawing too much from the author's experiences when it comes to
changing people's minds. Engagement rarely, if ever, changes the opinions of
people because people debate to hear how they're right and not how they're
wrong. For years I've engaged my parents on the issue of my desire to
transition (being that I'm transgender). And every time they respond with a
cold shoulder or some mild rebuke. This has been the norm for sixteen years
and they're not changing. So why should I engage them or anyone else like
them?

~~~
hga
Forgive me if I'm getting too personal, but are you looking for tolerance or
acceptance?

Because "live and let live" is an old and honored American tradition, and
taking this out of the domain of the family, not being able to refuse to bake
a gay wedding cake is the antithesis of that tradition.

They're not directly comparable, because it's your parents, then again, you
hardly have to go so far as to desire to transition to be given the cold
shoulder or anything but a mild rebuke over something else that differs that's
fundamental in your nature and that's different between you and your parents
(in my case it pertained to simply going to college).

~~~
norea-armozel
"Because "live and let live" is an old and honored American tradition, and
taking this out of the domain of the family, not being able to refuse to bake
a gay wedding cake is the antithesis of that tradition."

The problem with that argument is that it means I can force Christians seeking
employment to urinate on the Bible as a condition of that employment. So, the
law as it stands prevents me from forcing Christians to denigrate themselves
for a quick buck. Similarly, I can't deny Christians access to my services as
a programmer. So why should a Christian baker be able to deny their services
in kind?

Do you see the problem here? Basically, it would lead to an economic apartheid
where the evangelical majority in the South can deny services to those who
aren't them. These aren't just bakers either but medical doctors, EMTs, and
police officers. Can you imagine a gay person dying from kidney cancer being
told by the oncologist they're not going to treat them for their cancer until
they repent? This has happened in the United States during the AIDS scare of
the 80s. Hospices, hospitals, and individual medical staff refused to treat
AIDS patients. Is that the kind of "tolerance" you want? Or do you want the
law to say "keep your faith at home." Because even when I was an evangelical
years ago I knew that the law was for my benefit too. If you think that a
complex society like ours can live that way I'm just done with this
conversation.

"They're not directly comparable, because it's your parents, then again, you
hardly have to go so far as to desire to transition to be given the cold
shoulder or anything but a mild rebuke over something else that differs that's
fundamental in your nature and that's different between you and your parents
(in my case it pertained to simply going to college)."

In college, you're not obliged to a conversation with your fellow students. If
they're there to learn and it's not part of the credit requirement to debate
you on a topic in the course then how about you take a hint and leave that
person alone. I know that's mean of me but being that I went to college and
grad school I found there was little time for chitchat and whenever there was
any it wasn't about my gender identity. So, I guess I see college as something
I didn't worry about challenging anything because my interest was getting a
degree to get a good job and not to play faux activist. Because honestly,
there's little virtue in trying to convince "the other side" of anything. I'd
rather they just get their collective heads out of their butts and realize my
humanity isn't conditional. If it's too hard for them to see me as human then
well they're gonna have a bad time talking to me (as I might likely mock their
dear Lord and Savior).

~~~
hga
_This has happened in the United States during the AIDS scare of the 80s.
Hospices, hospitals, and individual medical staff refused to treat AIDS
patients._

Were you, you know, actually around for this "scare"?

It wasn't a "scare", it was a debilitating _and universally fatal infectious_
blood-born disease, which we'd gotten out of the habit of admitting was such a
thing, And more than a few healthcare workers contracted it from their
patients.

I'm going to call you on this claim of facts of refusal to treat AIDS
patients, which I know happened at small scales, dentists included, for not
everyone is Florence Nightingale brave, while also pointing out that prior to
the development of effective treatments this didn't, you know, actually effect
eventual outcomes. And was it widespread enough to be a major thing, enough
that people were denied treatment altogether, as opposed to having to get it
from someone else?

Going further, are we eventually going to regret according civil rights _to a
disease_? Suppose Ebola had been much more transmissible than it turned out to
be (helps when it kills so fast, it'll get really bad if/when it adapts and
kills less, and less quickly).

~~~
norea-armozel
First, you don't have to be alive during something to know about it's history.
We have these things called books and there's plenty of people still alive
from the early 1980s. In fact, if you want to know I was born in 1980 and I
remember that the scare was still present even in my home state of Kansas
where I was instructed by my own parents to use toilet covers in public
restrooms because I might get AIDS. Yes, son, it was that bad where people
were doing idiotic things.

Also, I have gay friends who were teenagers and adults from that time who told
me the stories about how doctors refusing to even give antibiotics to infected
friends. So, I don't want to hear your bullshit about it being a "blood-born
disease" on such matters.

Furthermore, you're dishonest for trying to conflate the disease with the
patient. AIDS doesn't mean a doctor shrinks away from treating their patients,
nor does Ebola for that matter. If you became a doctor in a general hospital
score some nurse tail then you're in the wrong business. Try consulting or
taking patients on a per-invite basis (such clinics exist for a reason). On
top of all that, you've just proven yourself to be the bigot I expect because
you conflate the disease with the patient rather than address my principle
points regarding why we have such laws in place for PUBLIC businesses.

So, if you want to address that point I'm game but if you can't admit that
freedom of association is not unlimited then we can't discuss anything. So, do
you think it's okay for me to force Christians to urinate on the Bible or a
figure of Jesus as a requirement in a job interview. Or to pledge their souls
to Satan (since I know some Satanists who are business owners believe it or
not)? Let's see how far you wanna go down the rabbit hole of apartheid.

------
rvdavis

      When the most powerful demographic in the United States came together to assert that making America great again meant asserting their supremacy, they were asserting my supremacy.
    

I find this rhetoric troubling; I know many Trump supporters and none would
explain their vote in terms of asserting "supremacy" for their demographic.
Given the author's background, I see how he could reach that conclusion, but
his assertion stands in opposition to other parts of his article in which he
states that engagement is the key to changing minds. I'm not too sure why he
thinks that smearing the millions of voters who supported Trump as white
supremacists is a positive step toward engaging them in civil discussion.

~~~
MyNameIsFred
Following that statement, the author spends the rest of the article explaining
how the people asserting supremacy often do not see it as such.

It is an implicit and unwitting reality of the position they are taking. I
used to be one of these folks; I couldn't see the harm and hate of my own
positions, thanks to the fog of ethnocentrism.

------
golergka
So, the author was in one group and subscribed to the majority opinion there,
and then adopted another majority opinion of a new social circle?

~~~
MereInterest
Every opinion is the majority opinion of some social circle. That is not the
point of the article. The point is that the author has been exposed to both
white supremacy and tolerance, is in a position where he can evaluate both of
them from an insider's view, and clearly chose tolerance as the morally
superior option.

~~~
golergka
> Every opinion is the majority opinion of some social circle.

But not every opinion is the majority opinion of the social circle that the
person is immersed in right now.

> clearly chose tolerance as the morally superior option

Possibly. But also it's possible that the fact that this was a much more
socially acceptable opinion played a significant role.

~~~
apozem
I constantly see this assumption from people who attack left-wing culture. It
is a mistake to assume someone supports PC politics out of "virtue signaling"
or a desire to be socially accepted. Maybe some people do that, but many
don't. Most of the time you won't have proof either way. Don't assume.

It is intellectually lazy to discount the possibility that someone could
assess pro-diversity ideas with an open mind and simply find them superior.
Regardless of your politics, that's just giving an opposing ideology the
respect it deserves.

You don't know if this guy drifted left because of social pressure, and
frankly that's a silly and disrespectful thing to assume.

~~~
golergka
I would make the same point if he migrated from left to right in the similar
circumstances. My logic is not based on the nature of the beliefs he
expressed; only on a correlation between peer pressure and what he believes
in.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
Do you believe anyone ever actually takes any position out of genuine
conscience?

~~~
golergka
Absolutes don't exist, and the world isn't black and white - which doesn't
mean that everything is the same shade of 50% gray.

------
k__
"For every woke dude, there are 10 burned out feminists."

I don't know who said this, but it's true for many things.

Ten or hundred people telling someone they're wrong, isn't enough to change
what year long indoctrination has done.

Even if you think "I talked to thousands of racists in my life and I just
don't want to waste my time to change their minds" you should still do it,
because it has an effect, just not for all of the thousand people you talked
to.

------
Kenji
_The reality is that half of the voters chose white supremacy, though saying
that makes me a hypocrite._

Wut? People who voted for Obama voted for Trump! Seems like when people, like
this guy, get emotional over election results, they throw all logic out of the
window.

------
aftalavera
To you PEOPLE how constantly claim to be so "diverse",why are you so
intolerant with divergent opinions? We do respect your right to be stupid!
When are you'll leaving?

~~~
norea-armozel
When those opinions support denying civil rights from minorities like LGBT
people then those opinions are inherently wrong. Whether it's civil marriage
or respecting trans people when it comes to non-discrimination in the various
spheres of public life (employment & public accommodations), these rights
shouldn't be a matter of debate but rather the baseline for any discussion.
It's not like these rights impede free association in the private sphere.

