Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

The time for talking seems over. The days of toleration, of nodding along and trying to engage with the crazy uncle over thanksgiving dinner seem to have failed. It may be time for more direct action, for properly ostracizing such people. The racists and homophones aren't going to be invited to my family gatherings anymore. And when they ask I will make sure they understand why.

Everyone thinks that such people can be negotiated with. I don't think they can until they understand exactly what they are doing. They don't know that they are racist, they now believe they are the normal people. They need to told exactly how dangerous we believe them to be.




Please don't post inflammatory comments on flamewar topics to Hacker News. We hope to keep a higher standard both in civility and substance here.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12911187 and marked it off-topic.


> The days of toleration, of nodding along and trying to engage with the crazy uncle over thanksgiving dinner seem to have failed.

Indeed. But whose failure is it?

> Everyone thinks that such people can be negotiated with. I don't think they can until they understand exactly what they are doing.

You're assuming that everyone who supported Trump is racist. I know several intelligent, non-racist people who voted for Trump - they did it acknowledging that he was a piece of shit, but that he was a piece of shit who didn't hide the fact. He has opinions and he speaks them, instead of hiding them behind changing words.

Further, they see him as a chance to disrupt the current broken state of government - by brute force of personality.

Outside of the fringes of racists and homophonics [sic] , I think this is what won him the election.

> They don't know that they are racist, they now believe they are the normal people.

Painting everyone who did vote for him with the racist/homophobe brush ensures that there's no path for things to get better. People on average are not stupid - they're just frustrated with the state of things, and want to see change.

Change with a wrecking ball is still change.

As the father of a bi-racial child I'm terrified for his future this morning. But this is tempered by knowing that 51%* of the country doesn't hate my son or others based on skin color.* They hate where our country is going, and saw voting for this person as the best way to change that.

[1] [edit] 47% apparently.

[2] Okay, I don't know it, but the data strongly suggests it.


"51% of the country"

Clinton won the popular vote.


I think that was the implication, that Clinton folks are more or less guaranteed not to hate bi-racial children.

(Not that I agree or disagree with that.)


I think that it's important to speak out against intolerance, but also to be careful about retreating into righteousness; the groundswell of support for Trump is (probably, since I don't know any better than any of the countless other people who got this election totally wrong) precisely from people who feel that the direction of their country is leaving them behind. As we have seen, insisting that they are right, and that the worst of their attitudes should be left behind, doesn't silence them; it makes them feel forced into desperate action, willing to elect anyone who will (appear to) listen to and validate them.


But the engagement approach has failed. It is time for something new. Another cycle of engagement and acquiescence may only exacerbate the problem.

I;m not talking about changing views. I'm talking about making them aware of their views. They don't think they are racists. They don't think they are homophobic. Nobody has ever told them, they have never been confronted by someone they actually know and respect. Only once they understand that their views are describable in such terms can we ever then hope to change those views. It's a two-step process.

We all assume that convincing someone that they are racist will cause them to change. That denies the reality that someone can be a proud racist, a proud homophobe. I've got a pile of emails coming in from elderly family members who are very very proud of their anti-muslim and anti-gay views. Many start along the lines of "It may be racist, but that's what we need to fix today's problems." At least they acknowledge the description.


How do you take into account nuances. When President Obama was riding shotgun on the ACA passage he disregarded the opinions of the opposition with phrases like "No one has shown me any other alternatives," and "I won." When the ACA was finally passed, the opposition pointed out the flaws that are now occurring. Where in this entire process, even from the start was there any engagement.

I am actively asking what engagement programs or outreaches have been attempted. The only thing I can point to is the ever changing nature of our nation's acceptance of gays and lesbian marriage. Senator's Clinton and Obama both were against it until after the populace pointed out how much they were for it.

A thought experiment: Minimum wage. It is a horrible program that directly hurts the poor and downtrodden; it was first imposed by actual racists to keep blacks out of work[1], [2]. Now, based on its origination, is it a racist program to keep poor and downtrodden out of work or is it a racist program to eliminate the minimum wage? Who is the arbiter of this decision?

[1] "Colored labor is being sought to demoralize wage rates." American Federation of Labor President William Green

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis%E2%80%93Bacon_Act


I'm not convinced by this, partly because labelling people as racist is what we've been doing and failing. And as the other commentor says, your paragraphs are contradictory.

I keep meaning to write a longer thing about this, but we're running into the politics of loyalty and belonging. That's how you get people taking pride in their racism; they've chosen who they have solidarity with, who they consider their ingroup, and if racism is part of that group deliniation they're going to shout it from the rooftops.

(Given the way group identity works through churches in parts of America, the best approach might be to keep asking people who self-describe as Christian what they think of Trump's behaviour towards women..)


I don't understand this:

> I;m not talking about changing views. I'm talking about making them aware of their views. They don't think they are racists. They don't think they are homophobic. … Only once they understand that their views are describable in such terms can we ever then hope to change those views.

followed by this:

> We all assume that convincing someone that they are racist will cause them to change. That denies the reality that someone can be a proud racist, a proud homophobe. I've got a pile of emails coming in from elderly family members who are very very proud of their anti-muslim and anti-gay views.

The latter quote seems to be directly arguing against the point of view espoused in the former.


It's a two-step process. First you must make them understand that they are racist. That's requires confrontation. Once they acknowledge that truth, that reasonable people believe them racist, then you can go about convincing them that racism is a bad thing. The first statement is about people who do not believe themselves racist. The second about those who do and are proud of being so. You confront the former, negotiating only with the later.


And this type of post is how we got there. Thanks for illustrating the problem :)


This. Exactly.


>The racists and homophones

Oh dear lord.


Claire and Clare are no longer welcome!


Brian and Bryan are out, too.


How about Don and Dawn, though?


Depends on the regional accent, I think.


Raceists. People who like to race.


I just want to publicly say that you and your position disgust me.

How long until you find yourself joining in on the fun? https://vid.me/3Fqo




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: