Is this also your opinion of gang warfare, communist insurgency, and Islamic terrorism? Because normally when you say this sort of thing about violent people, you're asked to turn in your liberal card.
I was just restating Yamaha's apparent position, and pointing out that his doesn't seem to jive with your proposed explanation.
The Nurmeburg Trials were born of an acceptance that a lot of the German armed forces were only gulity of commits normal wartime acts, and only those that were directly responsible for the truely heinous crimes like those directly involved in the Holocaust and assorted mass murders of POWs were charged and court martialed, and even then if there actions could not be proved they were not convicted.
False. The Nuremburg trials were born of an acceptance that it was simply not feasible to prosecute everyone.
The first difficulty was the enormous number of Germans who might have to be first investigated, then penalized if found to have supported the Nazi state to an unacceptable degree. In the early months of denazification there was a great desire to be utterly thorough, to investigate every suspect and hold every supporter of Nazism accountable; however, it turned out that the numbers simply made this goal impractical.
There is a difference between honesty and abuse. FourDogsInAHorseSuit did not just advocate frankness; he advocated hounding racists underground.
Yes, I understand that. I'm not trying to argue his position (although I can see how it looked that way). What I disagree with is the notion that Truth and Reconciliation was giving radicals a seat at the table. It was giving -former- radicals a seat at the table. It was not legitimizing their beliefs, and it was not trying to win them over by sugar-coating the awfulness of their beliefs.
A bright red line is exactly what the Nuremberg Trials were. Yes, "followers" in the sense of those who followed orders to commit war crimes were culpable. But "followers" in the sense of those who joined the Nazi Party and espoused Nazi ideology but never participated directly in the crimes of the Third Reich were not. An awful lot of Germans were required to turn in their Nazi cards and renounce those beliefs, but otherwise allowed to keep living normal lives in the postwar state. Even Leni freaking Riefenstahl was never convicted of any crime -- she kept making films up to her death in 2003.
Only the most directly responsible were actually prosecuted at Nuremberg, but the Allies considered all Germans culpable. It was only the practicalities of individual prosecuting and punishing an entire nation that kept the trials limited.
My point is there was no attempt to win over the German populace by telling them they weren't like the others, that they weren't so bad, that their beliefs weren't TRUE racism. Doing so would have only allowed them to keep those beliefs without having to confront the realities of those beliefs.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
So which posts and people need confirmation and which don't?
Also who are the Backups if Congress says no?
So the cabinet level positions need confirmation from the Senate - that's all the "secretary" positions, plus attorney general. A wide variety (like over a thousand) of lower-level positions in the various department also need approval, but those are usually pretty minor - they mostly only get held up as part of a larger strategy of obstruction (or if someone really controversial gets nominated).
If an appointment gets rejected (or just not voted on), the president can still make a recess appointment, if the Senate actually goes into recess. Republicans have been refusing to let the Senate go into recess for the last several years to effectively remove the power of the recess appointment - it's unclear if they will continue to do that with a Republican in the White House. Failing that, the position remains vacant until the president nominates someone else and the Senate approves them.
EDIT: The CNN crawl is real, it's in reference to Spencer saying, "One wonders if these people are people at all, or instead soulless golem." Although apparently the "people" he was referring to were the media.
Bannon could be denied due to being a Nazi, if Congress decides to be reasonable about it (don't hold your breath). Flynn isn't the worst choice, though he'd be controversial under any other president. Priebus is just fine, though it would be horrifyingly funny if Priebus is the one who gets the most debate in Congress. Sessions is racist and a Congressional Obstructionist, but both of those are probably not a big deal to Congressional Republicans. Pompeo is a sadist and anti-Bill-of-Rights, but is also a Congressional Obstructionist, so Congress may support their own there.
Steve Bannon is not up for a cabinet-level position. Congress doesn't get a vote.
I'm shocked that you aren't getting this. It isn't that any conflicting views are met with this defensive stance it is that such a strong conflicting view is met with defense. Racist isn't just a 'your wrong' it is 'your wrong and a horrible person'. Such a strong conflict will put people on defense while slower approaches can actually yield results. I even stated how to go about this but you ignored this and instead doubled down on my first point. When debating you need to get the other person to see your side and then except it as fact, as long as you put off using the word racist until they actually see the side of the argument that makes the original thing racist then it can be used as a powerful finisher, but starting with racist is too strong of a shift and will make them reject your view without considering your side.
But yes if your opinion of a person is challenged it is more likely to put you on defense then if your opinion on a subject is challenged because people like to think they are good judges of character. Partially because it encompasses many facets while a single subject is exactly that, a single subject.
"Some other person is a racist" is not "You're wrong and a horrible person" - it doesn't call into question your character. If someone is unwilling to be challenged on whether they have correctly judged a third party's character, then why would they be willing to be challenged on other similarly benign points? People like to think they're good judges of character, but people also like to thing they're good judges of facts. No matter what point you challenges them on, you're going to put them on the defensive. That's just how arguments work.
The effect of refusing to even say the word "racist" is that you normalize racism. Even if you manage to convince people that one specific racist view is incorrect via this pathetic whack-a-mole strategy, you've left unchallenged the underlying idea that such views represent a valid way of looking at the world. To take magickware's example, even if you convince someone that the statistics don't support their Asian driver stereotype, you've done nothing to dispel the pattern of thinking that leads one to that sort of stereotype.
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.
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? Is your position now that you can totally say racist, as long as it's not the first thing you say? If that's not your position, then this is a red herring.
No, that's exactly what he said. He said that Mr. C "will not [accept]" that his opinion of B is wrong. Mr. C is not even being called a racist here - there's no hint of insult or questioning of Mr. C's character. The "loaded point" that Mr. C apparently can't accept is merely that some third party might be a racist, and Mr. C doesn't think so.
I was just restating Yamaha's apparent position, and pointing out that his doesn't seem to jive with your proposed explanation.
So, in other words, it's not the case that "feeling like they're under siege" is what drives them to violence - they just like committing violence.
This clearly explains the rash of hate crimes following Trump's election.
False. The Nuremburg trials were born of an acceptance that it was simply not feasible to prosecute everyone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denazification
Yes, I understand that. I'm not trying to argue his position (although I can see how it looked that way). What I disagree with is the notion that Truth and Reconciliation was giving radicals a seat at the table. It was giving -former- radicals a seat at the table. It was not legitimizing their beliefs, and it was not trying to win them over by sugar-coating the awfulness of their beliefs.
Only the most directly responsible were actually prosecuted at Nuremberg, but the Allies considered all Germans culpable. It was only the practicalities of individual prosecuting and punishing an entire nation that kept the trials limited.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_collective_guilt
My point is there was no attempt to win over the German populace by telling them they weren't like the others, that they weren't so bad, that their beliefs weren't TRUE racism. Doing so would have only allowed them to keep those beliefs without having to confront the realities of those beliefs.
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.
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.
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 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?
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.
So the cabinet level positions need confirmation from the Senate - that's all the "secretary" positions, plus attorney general. A wide variety (like over a thousand) of lower-level positions in the various department also need approval, but those are usually pretty minor - they mostly only get held up as part of a larger strategy of obstruction (or if someone really controversial gets nominated).
If an appointment gets rejected (or just not voted on), the president can still make a recess appointment, if the Senate actually goes into recess. Republicans have been refusing to let the Senate go into recess for the last several years to effectively remove the power of the recess appointment - it's unclear if they will continue to do that with a Republican in the White House. Failing that, the position remains vacant until the president nominates someone else and the Senate approves them.
EDIT: The CNN crawl is real, it's in reference to Spencer saying, "One wonders if these people are people at all, or instead soulless golem." Although apparently the "people" he was referring to were the media.
Steve Bannon is not up for a cabinet-level position. Congress doesn't get a vote.
"Some other person is a racist" is not "You're wrong and a horrible person" - it doesn't call into question your character. If someone is unwilling to be challenged on whether they have correctly judged a third party's character, then why would they be willing to be challenged on other similarly benign points? People like to think they're good judges of character, but people also like to thing they're good judges of facts. No matter what point you challenges them on, you're going to put them on the defensive. That's just how arguments work.
The effect of refusing to even say the word "racist" is that you normalize racism. Even if you manage to convince people that one specific racist view is incorrect via this pathetic whack-a-mole strategy, you've left unchallenged the underlying idea that such views represent a valid way of looking at the world. To take magickware's example, even if you convince someone that the statistics don't support their Asian driver stereotype, you've done nothing to dispel the pattern of thinking that leads one to that sort of stereotype.
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.
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? Is your position now that you can totally say racist, as long as it's not the first thing you say? If that's not your position, then this is a red herring.
No, that's exactly what he said. He said that Mr. C "will not [accept]" that his opinion of B is wrong. Mr. C is not even being called a racist here - there's no hint of insult or questioning of Mr. C's character. The "loaded point" that Mr. C apparently can't accept is merely that some third party might be a racist, and Mr. C doesn't think so.