But he decided to take the opinion of some faceless weirdos on the internet over them.
His friends didn't attempt to dissuade him, they just brushed his racist remarks off. There was no choosing the internet over them.
Even if that were the case, does that mean I am alienated from my conservative friends because I put more stock in the opinions of internet pundits I read over theirs?
I'm not exactly unique in calling online communities with strong ideological leanings "echo chambers". It's not just a matter of raw exposure, it's a matter of belonging and trust. Most of the diehards who frequent Stormfront or Tumblr or LessWrong or wherever are almost certainly exposed to other media, they just don't listen to them.
If this is your definition of being in an echo chamber, it applies to a huge number of people, not just violent extremists. How then can it be the explanation for violence?
I was around for the Trayvon Martin incident too, but I didn't google "black on white crime" or climb down the rabbit hole of racism. Something within him primed him to be susceptible to this literature. And the phrasing of his Google query is, I think, extremely revealing as to what that was. If nothing else, there's the fact that the Trayvon Martin incident was white on black.
Roof says he googled "black on white crime" and was "in disbelief" over what he found. If he felt white people were under attack prior to googling, why would he be in disbelief?
If you're debating the capital gains tax, you don't think different perspectives are all potentially valid -- you think your perspective is the correct one and the others are incorrect. The difference is that "incorrect" in the case of the capital gains tax means "maybe a bit less economic efficiency", whereas "incorrect" in the case of racism means "moral evil".
Has there been a rise in hate crimes after Trump's election? Last I saw even Mother Jones was saying the evidence was anecdotal. Let's not fall prey to the same trap of letting anecdotes reinforce a preexisting narrative.
I'm certainly willing to entertain the possibility that the trend is not the way numbers make it appear (perhaps due to reporting bias or otherwise), but I'm not sure it's true that the evidence is purely anecdotal.
So Roof for some reason decided to turn away from his offline non-racist friends and associates, and you say this isn't alienation?
I don't think it's true that he decided to turn away from his friends and associates. He lived with his friends right up until the murders. He made racist comments from time to time, but they shrugged it off. He wasn't driven away from them, he wasn't berated or made to feel embarrassed or ashamed.
He turned to white supremacist websites where he was subjected to an unbroken stream of racist ideology, and you say this isn't an echo chamber?
That seems like a bit of a stretch. Is it really the case that any reading of supremacist literature constitutes an echo chamber, regardless of whether you're also being exposed to other media and voices?
He googled "black on white crime" indicating some worry that white people were under attack by black people, and you say this isn't a siege mentality?
If the previous attempt was a bit of a stretch, then this is a huge leap. He googled that because of the Trayvon Martin incident, not because he felt he was under attack.
So are we supposed to challenge racist literature, or does engaging it in argument legitimize it? I can't figure out where you stand today.
You should challenge it with the perspective that it is illegitimate and unacceptable. Not in the manner one might debate, say, the capital gains tax, in which different perspectives are all potentially valid answers.
Yes, the question is what makes someone who is an extremist turn to violence. That question intrinsically requires looking at nonviolent extremists, to see when and why they drop the "non-" bit. So: what makes a nonviolent white nationalist, or a nonviolent street criminal, or a nonviolent Islamist, turn into a violent one? I've already answered the question: alienation and an echo chamber. If you say, "I don't care about these nonviolent types, tell me about the violent ones", you're moving the goalposts, and nonsensically so. What makes violent people turn violent? They can't turn violent. They're already violent. The matter is tautological.
I'm not saying "I don't care about the non-violent types", I'm saying I don't care about the transition from non-violent non-extremist to non-violent extremist. I care about the transition from non-violent extremist to violent extremist. The answer you previously gave to this question was, "they feel like they're under siege and violence is the only option". That's not really the same as "alienation and an echo chamber", is it?
Does either of those answers explain the rise in hate crimes after Trump's election? Does it explain why Dylan Roof went from non-violent white supremacist to murderer? Roof wasn't in an echo chamber - his friends and associates were not supremacists. Instead, it seems he was driven to violence through online self-radicalization. He was turned violent by reading supremacist websites, and deciding to take matters into his own hands. He said he googled "black on white crime" and the result that came up was the CCC website. It was the ready availability of unchallenged racist literature that created him, not being attacked by anti-racists.
You're just moving the goalposts. Your statement wasn't about what makes people become extremists, it was about what causes people who are extremists to commit violence
Where's the line between extremist and non-extremist? Because if one (reasonably) says it's a rough spectrum:
Gandhi Joe Schmoe
Average Joe Schmoe
Extremist Sympathizer Joe Schmoe
Extremist Joe Schmoe
Violent Extremist Joe Schmoe
... then the cause for moving one way or other on said spectrum could be the same.
All you've done is plop violence on the end of an otherwise non-violent spectrum, and pretended that it constitutes a continuation of that spectrum.
Not all extremists are violent. The jump from being racist to shooting up black churches is a significant one. Just like the jump from property crime to violent crime, or the jump from aggrieved Islam to suicide bombing.
Yes, so the question is what makes someone who is an extremist turn to violence. Not what makes someone become an extremist. Do you really think neo-nazis are a peaceful bunch until they feel like they're under siege and violence is the only option? Neo-nazis have never struck me as a "violence is the last resort" type.
Well, apparently the standard around here is whatever is most convenient for your argument - so I guess my answer should be "people not using the word 'racist' enough". You're the one who's proposed an explanation, back it up with evidence or retract it. Don't try to dodge the issue by asking me for one.
I'm asking because I suspect we have the same explanation for this violence: jihad is a reaction to the perception that the Muslim identity is under attack from Western culture. When at-risk Muslims feel this way, they seek out associates and media which validate those feelings and cut themselves off from the rest, consuming jihadist propaganda until they're ready to die for the Caliphate. When Westerners engage in "clash of civilizations" rhetoric or call Islam an evil religion or threaten to burn a Qur'an, they reinforce this siege mentality and serve as grist for the propaganda mill. Such behavior is to be discouraged. The key to deradicalization and to preventing radicalization is engagement, not demonization.
Gang violence is not all that different. Young men come into socioeconomic circumstances where prosperity through an honest career seems like an impossibility and the pop culture depicts men like them as thugs. If they end up in prison, they're surrounded by other criminals and come out hardened. Again, it's getting cut off from broader engagement and driven into an echo chamber that turns them into dangers to society. And efforts to get them out of gangs focus on things like education and trade skills that can enable them to rejoin that society. Just berating them for being criminals is far less likely to get them to stop.
But white nationalists... what? They're just born bad? I don't think so, and I don't think you think so either. Neo-Nazis get recruited the same way jihadists and gang members get recruited, and they respond the same way to the same sorts of carrots and sticks.
You're just moving the goalposts. Your statement wasn't about what makes people become extremists, it was about what causes people who are extremists to commit violence:
Extremists are more likely to commit violence when they feel like they're under siege and violence is the only option.
Give me what you consider to be a fact-based explanation of the causes of violence -- say, jihadist violence, for starters.
Well, apparently the standard around here is whatever is most convenient for your argument - so I guess my answer should be "people not using the word 'racist' enough". You're the one who's proposed an explanation, back it up with evidence or retract it. Don't try to dodge the issue by asking me for one.
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.
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?
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!
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?
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.
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.
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. In other words, there will always be people who see events as an opportunity to act out their existing motives. We simply cannot build theories of cause and effect on such behavior, or make generalizations on masses based on the actions of a handful of people.
That is a completely different scenario compared to decades of war and oppression driving people into desperation and thus joining a bad cause and committing acts of terror.
So then it sounds like you agree with me that Blinking Spirit's position is made-up nonsense, and not a fact-based explanation of the causes of violence?
You can't dismiss people and also talk to them honestly.
Of course you can. How are those things mutually exclusive?
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.
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 is
Reinforce racist views as an identity
Fully assume racism of those who seem racist
Give no thought to redemption
Calling someone racist does not deny them a chance to be heard. Calling someone racist does not deny them an opportunity to move past their views. 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. Calling someone racist does not deny them a chance of redemption.
I don't even know what "reinforce racist views as an identity" means, or how one would go about doing that.
Then you have denied any possibility of changing people's minds.
Unsubstantiated nonsense.
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. You don't have to give them some comforting illusion that they're not as bad as they are.
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. Treating racism as just another valid alternative to be argued over is dangerous.
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?
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.
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.
His friends didn't attempt to dissuade him, they just brushed his racist remarks off. There was no choosing the internet over them.
Even if that were the case, does that mean I am alienated from my conservative friends because I put more stock in the opinions of internet pundits I read over theirs?
If this is your definition of being in an echo chamber, it applies to a huge number of people, not just violent extremists. How then can it be the explanation for violence?
Roof says he googled "black on white crime" and was "in disbelief" over what he found. If he felt white people were under attack prior to googling, why would he be in disbelief?
Yes, that's what I meant.
SPLC has numbers on it: https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/11/18/update-incidents-hateful-harassment-election-day-now-number-701
I'm certainly willing to entertain the possibility that the trend is not the way numbers make it appear (perhaps due to reporting bias or otherwise), but I'm not sure it's true that the evidence is purely anecdotal.
I don't think it's true that he decided to turn away from his friends and associates. He lived with his friends right up until the murders. He made racist comments from time to time, but they shrugged it off. He wasn't driven away from them, he wasn't berated or made to feel embarrassed or ashamed.
That seems like a bit of a stretch. Is it really the case that any reading of supremacist literature constitutes an echo chamber, regardless of whether you're also being exposed to other media and voices?
If the previous attempt was a bit of a stretch, then this is a huge leap. He googled that because of the Trayvon Martin incident, not because he felt he was under attack.
You should challenge it with the perspective that it is illegitimate and unacceptable. Not in the manner one might debate, say, the capital gains tax, in which different perspectives are all potentially valid answers.
I'm not saying "I don't care about the non-violent types", I'm saying I don't care about the transition from non-violent non-extremist to non-violent extremist. I care about the transition from non-violent extremist to violent extremist. The answer you previously gave to this question was, "they feel like they're under siege and violence is the only option". That's not really the same as "alienation and an echo chamber", is it?
Does either of those answers explain the rise in hate crimes after Trump's election? Does it explain why Dylan Roof went from non-violent white supremacist to murderer? Roof wasn't in an echo chamber - his friends and associates were not supremacists. Instead, it seems he was driven to violence through online self-radicalization. He was turned violent by reading supremacist websites, and deciding to take matters into his own hands. He said he googled "black on white crime" and the result that came up was the CCC website. It was the ready availability of unchallenged racist literature that created him, not being attacked by anti-racists.
?
I don't understand what goalpost I've moved.
All you've done is plop violence on the end of an otherwise non-violent spectrum, and pretended that it constitutes a continuation of that spectrum.
Yes, so the question is what makes someone who is an extremist turn to violence. Not what makes someone become an extremist. Do you really think neo-nazis are a peaceful bunch until they feel like they're under siege and violence is the only option? Neo-nazis have never struck me as a "violence is the last resort" type.
You're just moving the goalposts. Your statement wasn't about what makes people become extremists, it was about what causes people who are extremists to commit violence:
Well, apparently the standard around here is whatever is most convenient for your argument - so I guess my answer should be "people not using the word 'racist' enough". You're the one who's proposed an explanation, back it up with evidence or retract it. Don't try to dodge the issue by asking me for one.
People listening to you is not a prerequisite to speaking honestly.
Do have any actual evidence for this, or is it your just-so intuition?
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!
If I say you're a racist, is that now your identity? Do you now identify as a racist?
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.
Of course it doesn't help, it's completely tangential.
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.
So then it sounds like you agree with me that Blinking Spirit's position is made-up nonsense, and not a fact-based explanation of the causes of violence?
Of course you can. How are those things mutually exclusive?
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.
Calling someone racist does not deny them a chance to be heard. Calling someone racist does not deny them an opportunity to move past their views. 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. Calling someone racist does not deny them a chance of redemption.
I don't even know what "reinforce racist views as an identity" means, or how one would go about doing that.
Unsubstantiated nonsense.
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. You don't have to give them some comforting illusion that they're not as bad as they are.
No, racism should be dismissed. Treating racism as just another valid alternative to be argued over is dangerous.
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?
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.
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.