Not being able to talk to someone honestly is not a particularly hard circumstance to bring about. People are quite happy to essentially ignore anyone who disagrees with them about important things. You have to make an effort to ensure people will listen to you.
People listening to you is not a prerequisite to speaking honestly.
Speaking without listening is not a meaningful form of speaking.
I think they will. Not much, because this is again a reductionist example of the difference I am talking about, even if less so, but somewhat here.
I'm talking about not calling their views in general but specific statements racist, and with qualification and restraint.
Do have any actual evidence for this, or is it your just-so intuition?
I think it's relatively obvious from experience, reasoning and intuition that directing the accusation away from the person changes the response. It's a matter of degrees.
Calling someone racist does not deny them a chance to be heard.
Far more often than not, I believe it either does nothing or goes towards exactly this.
How, exactly, does saying that someone is racist prevent them from being heard? You had to have heard them out to hear them say the racist thing in the first place!
Others are less likely to listen to them now. The person making the accusation is making it much easier for them to stop really listening.
You are making it into an identity by making it about the person, and making it an identity means it doesn't go away even remotely easily.
If I say you're a racist, is that now your identity? Do you now identify as a racist?
I covered this already. You are defining them by their beliefs. 'Racism' is just the label you are giving to those beliefs that describes how you perceive them. They will perceive their beliefs differently, but they probably will take on board that those beliefs define them, because that's a very human response that we do a lot anyway. It's about us vs them kind of thinking.
Yes you should. You don't assume a murderer is a murderer because you think they are. You prove it. Innocent until proven guilty and the principle of charity apply.
I'm not saying don't say anything to effect of 'that's racist' when someone says something you think is racist, that's never something I've spoken against, I am saying you don't automatically take that as meaning that person must be racist. You could be wrong about what the statement, they could be wrong about what their statement meant, you could be the more racist person not them, it could be an outlier in their beliefs, they could lying, and more.
If they've misspoken or you've misunderstood, calling out the apparent racism is the way to resolve that. If they're lying to you, then you're not going to get anywhere in that debate anyway.
To repeat:
I'm not saying don't say anything to effect of 'that's racist' when someone says something you think is racist, that's never something I've spoken against, I am saying you don't automatically take that as meaning that person must be racist.
Call them out, absolutely. Don't define them by it.
Calling someone racist does not deny them a chance of redemption.
Not totally. It certainly doesn't help.
Of course it doesn't help, it's completely tangential.
Disagree. You are making the accusation more fundamental to their person. That makes it harder to go past.
Making the discussion about them being racist makes it not about the racist things they have said but how they as as a person are a racist. Being racist is a kind of identity- you are making their positions out to be part of their identity. They won't think of it as racism of course, but they will start to see it as an identity. Same reason I'm not a big fan of a lot of political labeling and words like SJW- it becomes about the people not the ideas, the us vs them.
That's what being a racist means. It means you think racist things. It's not separate from your positions. Racists don't have some special racist gene or trait.
No but there is a difference between thinking something and being defined by how you think that kind of thing. Not every position you have you consider as part of your identity. Because not every position you have you think is as important to who you are as a person.
Racism is a human motive, not a description of anything and everything which hurts a certain race.
That's your opinion. I'm not saying that to be dismissive, I'm pointing out that this definition of the term "racism" is the one that you want to use. Plenty of for example leftists are mostly unconcerned with the exact motivations of individuals because the systemic incentives and results are more useful to them.
It's the definition of racism that isn't a recent contrived invention. It's awfully suspicious when people change the meaning of a powerful term with a strong moral component to mean something that's much easier to accuse others of and it's 'more useful' now. More useful for calling things you don't like racist perhaps.
You can't dismiss people and also talk to them honestly.
Of course you can. How are those things mutually exclusive?
Not being able to talk to someone honestly is not a particularly hard circumstance to bring about. People are quite happy to essentially ignore anyone who disagrees with them about important things. You have to make an effort to ensure people will listen to you.
I'm perfectly fine with this, because we are looking at views now.
Referencing racism in their position I think is much better than calling the person racist in a debate and not just to help ensure that they will listen to you, but also because it's easier to defend intellectually and often much easier to clearly relate to the conservation at large.
This is just "your views are racist" vs. "you are racist". No one is going to be fooled by that distinction. No one is going to respond differently to those two statements.
I think they will. Not much, because this is again a reductionist example of the difference I am talking about, even if less so, but somewhat here.
I'm talking about not calling their views in general but specific statements racist, and with qualification and restraint.
Calling someone racist does not deny them a chance to be heard.
Far more often than not, I believe it either does nothing or goes towards exactly this.
Calling someone racist does not deny them an opportunity to move past their views
You are making it into an identity by making it about the person, and making it an identity means it doesn't go away even remotely easily.
You should not give "the benefit of the doubt" that racism is not actually racism. That's just a way of letting racism go unchallenged. If something sounds racist, say so. That gives the person a chance to clarify or walk back their statement.
Yes you should. You don't assume a murderer is a murderer because you think they are. You prove it. Innocent until proven guilty and the principle of charity apply.
I'm not saying don't say anything to effect of 'that's racist' when someone says something you think is racist, that's never something I've spoken against, I am saying you don't automatically take that as meaning that person must be racist. You could be wrong about what the statement, they could be wrong about what their statement meant, you could be the more racist person not them, it could be an outlier in their beliefs, they could lying, and more.
Calling someone racist does not deny them a chance of redemption.
Not totally. It certainly doesn't help.
I don't even know what "reinforce racist views as an identity" means, or how one would go about doing that.
Making the discussion about them being racist makes it not about the racist things they have said but how they as as a person are a racist. Being racist is a kind of identity- you are making their positions out to be part of their identity. They won't think of it as racism of course, but they will start to see it as an identity. Same reason I'm not a big fan of a lot of political labeling and words like SJW- it becomes about the people not the ideas, the us vs them.
Then you have denied any possibility of changing people's minds.
Unsubstantiated nonsense.
You can't dismiss people and also talk to them honestly.
I'm not talking about treating it as 'just another valid alternative' I'm talking about treating it as something worthy of engaging in debate. I don't believe there is much of anything that should never be debated on principle.
Few people are going to listen to you if you don't listen to them. You don't have to respect them, you don't have to treat them the same, but you do have to give them something. If they refuse to listen to you, then you can stop listening to them. But give them a chance to redeem themselves.
The something you have to give them is a clear, honest explanation of why they're wrong, and that includes the fact that their position is racist.
I'm perfectly fine with this, because we are looking at views now.
Referencing racism in their position I think is much better than calling the person racist in a debate and not just to help ensure that they will listen to you, but also because it's easier to defend intellectually and often much easier to clearly relate to the conservation at large.
You don't have to give them some comforting illusion that they're not as bad as they are.
That's nothing like what I am talking about.
What I am saying you should give people is
I find both of the phrases you contrasted earlier to be non ideal for most of their possible usages in a debate- particularly as a direct response.
My objection is that if you are going so far as to debate someone who you think is a racist you should not be dismissing them, and being very explicit, direct and confronting about calling them a racist is dismissive in effect if not intention.
EDIT: One thing to consider is that just because you think someone is racist doesn't necessarily mean they truly are- even if they seem like it. I think a significant amount of racism is actually self centered resentment directed to race by ignorance, and not deeply felt contempt of others.
No, racism should be dismissed.
Then you have denied any possibility of changing people's minds.
Treating racism as just another valid alternative to be argued over is dangerous.
I'm not talking about treating it as 'just another valid alternative' I'm talking about treating it as something worthy of engaging in debate. I don't believe there is much of anything that should never be debated on principle.
Few people are going to listen to you if you don't listen to them. You don't have to respect them, you don't have to treat them the same, but you do have to give them something. If they refuse to listen to you, then you can stop listening to them. But give them a chance to redeem themselves.
No, that's not what I am arguing. That is the simplest possible reduction of what I am arguing which makes the two sides as close to each other as possible and thereby makes the difference seems insignificant. Of course it does when you are looking at those examples. I am talking about a much broader and more fundamental difference in how you approach a debate than just substituting like words.
So you have no particular objection to either the word "racism" or "racist" when applied to the hypothetical person you're arguing with? It's only that you object to some other aspect of one's approach to debate?
I find both of the phrases you contrasted earlier to be non ideal for most of their possible usages in a debate- particularly as a direct response.
My objection is that if you are going so far as to debate someone who you think is a racist you should not be dismissing them, and being very explicit, direct and confronting about calling them a racist is dismissive in effect if not intention.
EDIT: One thing to consider is that just because you think someone is racist doesn't necessarily mean they truly are- even if they seem like it. I think a significant amount of racism is actually self centered resentment directed to race by ignorance, and not deeply felt contempt of others.
The later quote is me speaking about another person's argument, not mine. It was perhaps also not worded particularly well in hindsight.
Then explain to me what word it is about. And it the answer is that you think someone would respond negatively to "that's racist" but not negatively to "that's racism", I think I'm about done with this.
No, that's not what I am arguing. That is the simplest possible reduction of what I am arguing which makes the two sides as close to each other as possible and thereby makes the difference seems insignificant. Of course it does when you are looking at those examples. I am talking about a much broader and more fundamental difference in how you approach a debate than just substituting like words.
I'm not saying people shouldn't be called out in debate I am saying it should be done in the right way. And that is not a way that allows people to distance themselves from the criticism but in a way that allows them to distance themselves from their racism- and thereby reject it. As long as their racism is very much a part of them, it's not going to go away. I am saying you should work to avoid racism becoming an identity for people.
If a person does not take the opportunity to reject it and instead embraces it, I don't think explicitly calling them a racist would have helped anyone.
The effect of refusing to use the word "racism" is that it allows people who are racist to avoid associating their beliefs with that label. That allows racism to become normalized, and entrenches the self-image of being a non-racist. Such a tactic is completely counterproductive.
Well good thing this isn't about the use of the word racism.
You are presenting the situation very dichotomously, and I don't think fairly so.
There are a number of different circumstances for the issue of racism to be brought up in and those different circumstances call for different approaches.
General statements about a bigoted movement is not the same as personally speaking to all of those people- perhaps most importantly because the former does not draw any exact line about who is being spoken to. People have never made a general statement about such movements and specified just exactly how bigoted , or how involved in the movement, you needed to be. Speaking about the movement generally is mostly in effect speaking about the idea of the movement or the effects of the movement not directed exactly at its members. In this case there is very little harm that could be done by being aggressive and confrontational about it.
Personally speaking to a supporter of such a movement is a different affair. Being aggressive and confrontational is much more likely to prevent progress being made because the discussion is by its nature more personal, making it much harder for anyone to distance themselves from it. In this case I think you should be more reserved about how you apply the concept of racism.
The Allies were very clear about just how involved you had to be - any involvement at all implied guilt. All Germans were responsible. There can be no clearer or exact line than that.
Responsibility around a war is not the same thing as being racist. I'm pretty sure what didn't happen was people announcing all Germans to be racist. That would be stupid and kinda racist itself.
Also, the idea that literally all Germans were responsible is foolish. I hardly think, for instance, most of the German Jews who managed to survive, had any real hand in what happened.
Letting people distance themselves from the realities of racism allows them to shield their racist ideas from criticism. It allows them to sweep under the rug the consequences of their beliefs, and it allows them to dismiss arguments against racism by thinking those arguments don't apply to them.
I'm not saying people shouldn't be called out in debate I am saying it should be done in the right way. And that is not a way that allows people to distance themselves from the criticism but in a way that allows them to distance themselves from their racism- and thereby reject it. As long as their racism is very much a part of them, it's not going to go away. I am saying you should work to avoid racism becoming an identity for people.
If a person does not take the opportunity to reject it and instead embraces it, I don't think explicitly calling them a racist would have helped anyone.
The Truth and Reconciliation process was not giving a seat at the table to the ideas of Apartheid. Botha didn't even show up. The people who showed up were those willing to apologize for past abuses and renounce Apartheid, not those who remained apartheid supporters.
Yes. If they had been ridiculed, mocked, and berated instead of given this opportunity, how many do you think would have apologized and renounced Apartheid?
What about Denazification efforts in post-WW2 Germany? That process was certainly at least as successful in defusing radicalism, and it certainly didn't offer Nazism a seat at the table.
What, you mean Denazification in the postwar Germany where, instead of punishing the Germans for their role in unprovoked war and mass murder, we rebuilt their whole economy and invited them into the new democratic world order? Marshall Plan versus Treaty of Versailles is like Exhibit A in the "being nice to your enemies works better than humiliating them" argument.
Right, the PEOPLE who renounced those ideas were given a seat at the table. The ideas themselves were not given any respect. No one danced around calling a Nazi a Nazi, or calling a racist a racist. They were open, honest, and frank about those ideas and the people who held them. No one treated nazi ideas as being just another alternative to be politely argued against. Even those who were merely "followers" were considered culpable in the crimes of the Nazi state - the Allies didn't try to win them over by drawing a bright red line between them and the "real" Nazis.
You are presenting the situation very dichotomously, and I don't think fairly so.
There are a number of different circumstances for the issue of racism to be brought up in and those different circumstances call for different approaches.
General statements about a bigoted movement is not the same as personally speaking to all of those people- perhaps most importantly because the former does not draw any exact line about who is being spoken to. People have never made a general statement about such movements and specified just exactly how bigoted , or how involved in the movement, you needed to be. Speaking about the movement generally is mostly in effect speaking about the idea of the movement or the effects of the movement not directed exactly at its members. In this case there is very little harm that could be done by being aggressive and confrontational about it.
Personally speaking to a supporter of such a movement is a different affair. Being aggressive and confrontational is much more likely to prevent progress being made because the discussion is by its nature more personal, making it much harder for anyone to distance themselves from it. In this case I think you should be more reserved about how you apply the concept of racism.
We're conflating different things here. The general approach to racism in a country is an entirely different affair to the approach to racism in a discussion with a racist. Talking about how racists won't even engage in discussion is missing the point when this is about engaging in a discussion with racists.
Racists are also a more diverse group than Apartheid, Nazi and KKK people. Those are committed people. Others are merely being lead into racism by outside influence or circumstance, or only dabbling lightly in it. And these are the people who most likely you would be engaging in a discussion- even more so, I reckon they are the significant majority of racists. These people have at least some chance beyond when hell freezes over of turning back significantly.
You don't think there were all manners and types of Apartheid supporters, from the fervent down to the casual? Or the same for Nazi sympathizers?
When I said Apartheid, Nazi and KKK 'people' I didn't mean 'supporters of any kind' I meant those actively significantly involved in the movement- and not those sitting on the sidelines that supported it. It was hitting the other people at centre of the movement that turned those people away. Hitting those people in the same way could just as easily push them toward the centre than away from it- because hitting people hard as a bigoted and hateful is not very persuasive. But instead you can show these people that the people at the centre they are supporting are not them and they shouldn't become more like them.
Make an example of those who ought to be made an example of. Reason with those who ought to be reasoned with.
What osieorb said. The feeling of humiliation is one of the most effective generators for extremism and rage. The Trump movement is so angry at "political correctness" precisely because of this attitude. As distasteful as it may seem, the way to defuse radicalism is to give the radicals a seat at the table. Look at South Africa. Truth and Reconciliation. You think Mandela never sat down and played nice with people who considered him subhuman?
The Truth and Reconciliation process was not giving a seat at the table to the ideas of Apartheid. Botha didn't even show up. The people who showed up were those willing to apologize for past abuses and renounce Apartheid, not those who remained apartheid supporters. Even today South Africa is a deeply racially divided country - as much the Truth and Reconciliation Comission accomplished, it certainly didn't succeed in all its goals.
What about Denazification efforts in post-WW2 Germany? That process was certainly at least as successful in defusing radicalism, and it certainly didn't offer Nazism a seat at the table.
We're conflating different things here. The general approach to racism in a country is an entirely different affair to the approach to racism in a discussion with a racist. Talking about how racists won't even engage in discussion is missing the point when this is about engaging in a discussion with racists.
Racists are also a more diverse group than Apartheid, Nazi and KKK people. Those are committed people. Others are merely being lead into racism by outside influence or circumstance, or only dabbling lightly in it. And these are the people who most likely you would be engaging in a discussion- even more so, I reckon they are the significant majority of racists. These people have at least some chance beyond when hell freezes over of turning back significantly.
Again, you are missing the point. What you said was 'we cannot present...any premise with which he disagrees'. That was never said or implied. We talking about specific ways of objecting to B.
He said that the thing which would put "C" on the defensive is the possibility that "your opinion of "B" is wrong." Not a specific way of objecting - just the mere idea that his opinion is wrong.
'Your opinion of B' is not an unapecific opinion about B it has to do with whether B is racist ir not. The point is clearly to do with racism being an inflammatory word not with opposition itself being inflammatory.
I don't know what to tell you, but these do not say the same thing at all.
In the case where "C" has a well defined opinion of "B" which doesn't include being a racist, then "A" telling "C" this will put "C" on defensive, because there are only two possible explanations for "A" calling "B" a racist. "A" has a fundamentally different/clashing world view than you so you are unlikely to agree on anything, or your opinion of "B" is wrong. Most people will not except this at the start of a conversation
we cannot present to Mr. C any premise with which he disagrees, or else he will find himself on the defensive.
Especially look to this
the point being made here is that you shouldn't start with this loaded point.
Oh come on. He literally said, "then "A" telling "C" this will put "C" on defensive". You're really going to quibble over whether it's said at the start?
Again, you are missing the point. What you said was 'we cannot present...any premise with which he disagrees'. That was never said or implied. We talking about specific ways of objecting to B.
Speaking without listening is not a meaningful form of speaking.
I think it's relatively obvious from experience, reasoning and intuition that directing the accusation away from the person changes the response. It's a matter of degrees.
Others are less likely to listen to them now. The person making the accusation is making it much easier for them to stop really listening.
I covered this already. You are defining them by their beliefs. 'Racism' is just the label you are giving to those beliefs that describes how you perceive them. They will perceive their beliefs differently, but they probably will take on board that those beliefs define them, because that's a very human response that we do a lot anyway. It's about us vs them kind of thinking.
To repeat:
Call them out, absolutely. Don't define them by it.
Disagree. You are making the accusation more fundamental to their person. That makes it harder to go past.
No but there is a difference between thinking something and being defined by how you think that kind of thing. Not every position you have you consider as part of your identity. Because not every position you have you think is as important to who you are as a person.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
It's the definition of racism that isn't a recent contrived invention. It's awfully suspicious when people change the meaning of a powerful term with a strong moral component to mean something that's much easier to accuse others of and it's 'more useful' now. More useful for calling things you don't like racist perhaps.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Not being able to talk to someone honestly is not a particularly hard circumstance to bring about. People are quite happy to essentially ignore anyone who disagrees with them about important things. You have to make an effort to ensure people will listen to you.
I think they will. Not much, because this is again a reductionist example of the difference I am talking about, even if less so, but somewhat here.
I'm talking about not calling their views in general but specific statements racist, and with qualification and restraint.
Far more often than not, I believe it either does nothing or goes towards exactly this.
You are making it into an identity by making it about the person, and making it an identity means it doesn't go away even remotely easily.
Yes you should. You don't assume a murderer is a murderer because you think they are. You prove it. Innocent until proven guilty and the principle of charity apply.
I'm not saying don't say anything to effect of 'that's racist' when someone says something you think is racist, that's never something I've spoken against, I am saying you don't automatically take that as meaning that person must be racist. You could be wrong about what the statement, they could be wrong about what their statement meant, you could be the more racist person not them, it could be an outlier in their beliefs, they could lying, and more.
Not totally. It certainly doesn't help.
Making the discussion about them being racist makes it not about the racist things they have said but how they as as a person are a racist. Being racist is a kind of identity- you are making their positions out to be part of their identity. They won't think of it as racism of course, but they will start to see it as an identity. Same reason I'm not a big fan of a lot of political labeling and words like SJW- it becomes about the people not the ideas, the us vs them.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
You can't dismiss people and also talk to them honestly.
I'm perfectly fine with this, because we are looking at views now.
Referencing racism in their position I think is much better than calling the person racist in a debate and not just to help ensure that they will listen to you, but also because it's easier to defend intellectually and often much easier to clearly relate to the conservation at large.
That's nothing like what I am talking about.
What I am saying you should give people is
- A chance to be heard
- The benefit of the doubt
- An opportunity to move past their views
What I am saying you should not do isRUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Then you have denied any possibility of changing people's minds.
I'm not talking about treating it as 'just another valid alternative' I'm talking about treating it as something worthy of engaging in debate. I don't believe there is much of anything that should never be debated on principle.
Few people are going to listen to you if you don't listen to them. You don't have to respect them, you don't have to treat them the same, but you do have to give them something. If they refuse to listen to you, then you can stop listening to them. But give them a chance to redeem themselves.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
I find both of the phrases you contrasted earlier to be non ideal for most of their possible usages in a debate- particularly as a direct response.
My objection is that if you are going so far as to debate someone who you think is a racist you should not be dismissing them, and being very explicit, direct and confronting about calling them a racist is dismissive in effect if not intention.
EDIT: One thing to consider is that just because you think someone is racist doesn't necessarily mean they truly are- even if they seem like it. I think a significant amount of racism is actually self centered resentment directed to race by ignorance, and not deeply felt contempt of others.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
No, that's not what I am arguing. That is the simplest possible reduction of what I am arguing which makes the two sides as close to each other as possible and thereby makes the difference seems insignificant. Of course it does when you are looking at those examples. I am talking about a much broader and more fundamental difference in how you approach a debate than just substituting like words.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
The later quote is me speaking about another person's argument, not mine. It was perhaps also not worded particularly well in hindsight.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Well good thing this isn't about the use of the word racism.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Responsibility around a war is not the same thing as being racist. I'm pretty sure what didn't happen was people announcing all Germans to be racist. That would be stupid and kinda racist itself.
Also, the idea that literally all Germans were responsible is foolish. I hardly think, for instance, most of the German Jews who managed to survive, had any real hand in what happened.
I'm not saying people shouldn't be called out in debate I am saying it should be done in the right way. And that is not a way that allows people to distance themselves from the criticism but in a way that allows them to distance themselves from their racism- and thereby reject it. As long as their racism is very much a part of them, it's not going to go away. I am saying you should work to avoid racism becoming an identity for people.
If a person does not take the opportunity to reject it and instead embraces it, I don't think explicitly calling them a racist would have helped anyone.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
You are presenting the situation very dichotomously, and I don't think fairly so.
There are a number of different circumstances for the issue of racism to be brought up in and those different circumstances call for different approaches.
General statements about a bigoted movement is not the same as personally speaking to all of those people- perhaps most importantly because the former does not draw any exact line about who is being spoken to. People have never made a general statement about such movements and specified just exactly how bigoted , or how involved in the movement, you needed to be. Speaking about the movement generally is mostly in effect speaking about the idea of the movement or the effects of the movement not directed exactly at its members. In this case there is very little harm that could be done by being aggressive and confrontational about it.
Personally speaking to a supporter of such a movement is a different affair. Being aggressive and confrontational is much more likely to prevent progress being made because the discussion is by its nature more personal, making it much harder for anyone to distance themselves from it. In this case I think you should be more reserved about how you apply the concept of racism.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
When I said Apartheid, Nazi and KKK 'people' I didn't mean 'supporters of any kind' I meant those actively significantly involved in the movement- and not those sitting on the sidelines that supported it. It was hitting the other people at centre of the movement that turned those people away. Hitting those people in the same way could just as easily push them toward the centre than away from it- because hitting people hard as a bigoted and hateful is not very persuasive. But instead you can show these people that the people at the centre they are supporting are not them and they shouldn't become more like them.
Make an example of those who ought to be made an example of. Reason with those who ought to be reasoned with.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
We're conflating different things here. The general approach to racism in a country is an entirely different affair to the approach to racism in a discussion with a racist. Talking about how racists won't even engage in discussion is missing the point when this is about engaging in a discussion with racists.
Racists are also a more diverse group than Apartheid, Nazi and KKK people. Those are committed people. Others are merely being lead into racism by outside influence or circumstance, or only dabbling lightly in it. And these are the people who most likely you would be engaging in a discussion- even more so, I reckon they are the significant majority of racists. These people have at least some chance beyond when hell freezes over of turning back significantly.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
'Your opinion of B' is not an unapecific opinion about B it has to do with whether B is racist ir not. The point is clearly to do with racism being an inflammatory word not with opposition itself being inflammatory.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Again, you are missing the point. What you said was 'we cannot present...any premise with which he disagrees'. That was never said or implied. We talking about specific ways of objecting to B.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice