I don’t know that he didn’t get it. He just hadn’t a different method of fighting back. Not everyone is going to be able to go around knocking them out. The vast majority of people won’t in fact. There are still other tools they can use to stop the spread, or, in rare cases, reverse it. You have to be careful to not legitimize it though if you’re doing something like that.
This thread got me thinking a little more about Mr. Davis.
We talk about ‘not tolerating intolerance’ but I think there’s a second level-- there’s the intolerance (the actions of the racist), and then there’s the intolerant (the racists themselves). It’s easy and simple to group the two together- we don’t want racism, we don’t want the KKK, we don’t want KKK members, all of you go fuck yourselves with your burning cross and go die in a fire (preferably in another county).
I don’t think Mr. Davis would tolerate intolerance any more than you or I. But I think what he does is tolerate the intolerant person, engage them in conversation, treat them like a human being. And THAT can help fix intolerance- by reaching out to the intolerant people and trying to bring them into the larger community and heal them, rather than shunning them and reinforcing their stereotypes.
Yep, and it has the potential to be very effective. I think we need both of these —punching Nazis and talking with them to change their views.
Another big issue that goes with this is a lot of people will say that if their were bigots once then they should be shunned. This is very harmful though. If we do that then their only reasonable option is to double down. If they lose their group and also can’t be accepted by the rest of society then they’re never going to do that.
I think this problem is much larger than only this right now too. People make their opinions equal to them as a person. They feel if they change their opinion then they’re failing as a person. This isn’t true though. Changing your opinions when you’re shown new information is a sign of strength.
I think we need both of these —punching Nazis and talking with them to change their views.
Can you explain to me how punching Nazis works to reduce Naziism and racism? What is the mechanism of action? Like how specifically does getting punched make someone less racist?
That is a genuine question and I’d love an answer.
I personally believe that punching racists only creates more hatred. The racist will be angry at the one who punched him, and thus less open to anti-racist messaging.
It probably won’t change that person (unless you kill them). It’s to show everyone else that it isn’t tolerated. It’s to prevent them from going around doing whatever they want as if it’s normal, which will make other people believe it’s acceptable and may start believing the same things.
Can you point to some other times in history where the threat of being beaten up has been effective in eradicating an ideology?
I can point to plenty of instances where driving an ideology underground only fuels its growth…
And look at the simple logic of it- if the guy in the big KKK hood says ‘the establishment doesn’t want you to acknowledge this’ and he then gets beaten up by mainstream majority people, you’ve just proved him right in the eyes of a would-be follower.
It’s like if you found someone who knows nothing about astronomy, and told them ‘today the sun will rise at 7:15am and set at 5:43pm, and the moon is mostly made of bleu cheese’ you’ve predicted two things correctly so that gives you credibility when they consider the 3rd.
If I said that to you, you’d say ‘you looked that up on Google, anyone can do that, and it’s well known the moon is made of rock’. But you are knowledgeable about astronomy (on a basic level at least).
This works with the KKK person because chances are the KKK person has had limited or no actual contact and understanding with black people. So he sees news reports of inner city black people doing crimes and it becomes easy to convince him black people are somehow inferior. And ‘THEY don’t want you to know the truth’ is a powerful message for someone already interested in counterculture / dislike of the mainstream.
That’s why Daryl Davis is effective- he sits down with the racist, who has a mental image of what a ‘black person’ is, and he’s not that. It’s like putting you on a rocket and flying you out to the moon and saying ‘okay we’re here, where’s the cheese?’
And that’s why violence ISN’T effective- because the racist is expecting violence, so being violent only reinforces their belief.
Can you point to some other times in history where the threat of being beaten up has been effective in eradicating an ideology?
WWII?
Yeah, it usually doesn’t eradicate it. That’s basically never how we measure effectivity though. Being nice hasn’t either. Again, the point isn’t to change the person being attacked in these cases. It’s to show others that their views are not acceptable by society. It’s to show others that it isn’t a widely held belief and to not listen to them.
Yeah, unless we go on an all-out war against them it won’t be eradicated through violence. Growth can be slowed though. That’s why I said we need both violence and dialogue. They both can be useful tools.
I don’t know that he didn’t get it. He just hadn’t a different method of fighting back. Not everyone is going to be able to go around knocking them out. The vast majority of people won’t in fact. There are still other tools they can use to stop the spread, or, in rare cases, reverse it. You have to be careful to not legitimize it though if you’re doing something like that.
This thread got me thinking a little more about Mr. Davis.
We talk about ‘not tolerating intolerance’ but I think there’s a second level-- there’s the intolerance (the actions of the racist), and then there’s the intolerant (the racists themselves). It’s easy and simple to group the two together- we don’t want racism, we don’t want the KKK, we don’t want KKK members, all of you go fuck yourselves with your burning cross and go die in a fire (preferably in another county).
I don’t think Mr. Davis would tolerate intolerance any more than you or I. But I think what he does is tolerate the intolerant person, engage them in conversation, treat them like a human being. And THAT can help fix intolerance- by reaching out to the intolerant people and trying to bring them into the larger community and heal them, rather than shunning them and reinforcing their stereotypes.
“Hate the sin, love the sinner”, so to speak.
Exactly 100%
Yep, and it has the potential to be very effective. I think we need both of these —punching Nazis and talking with them to change their views.
Another big issue that goes with this is a lot of people will say that if their were bigots once then they should be shunned. This is very harmful though. If we do that then their only reasonable option is to double down. If they lose their group and also can’t be accepted by the rest of society then they’re never going to do that.
I think this problem is much larger than only this right now too. People make their opinions equal to them as a person. They feel if they change their opinion then they’re failing as a person. This isn’t true though. Changing your opinions when you’re shown new information is a sign of strength.
Can you explain to me how punching Nazis works to reduce Naziism and racism? What is the mechanism of action? Like how specifically does getting punched make someone less racist?
That is a genuine question and I’d love an answer.
I personally believe that punching racists only creates more hatred. The racist will be angry at the one who punched him, and thus less open to anti-racist messaging.
It probably won’t change that person (unless you kill them). It’s to show everyone else that it isn’t tolerated. It’s to prevent them from going around doing whatever they want as if it’s normal, which will make other people believe it’s acceptable and may start believing the same things.
Can you point to some other times in history where the threat of being beaten up has been effective in eradicating an ideology?
I can point to plenty of instances where driving an ideology underground only fuels its growth…
And look at the simple logic of it- if the guy in the big KKK hood says ‘the establishment doesn’t want you to acknowledge this’ and he then gets beaten up by mainstream majority people, you’ve just proved him right in the eyes of a would-be follower.
It’s like if you found someone who knows nothing about astronomy, and told them ‘today the sun will rise at 7:15am and set at 5:43pm, and the moon is mostly made of bleu cheese’ you’ve predicted two things correctly so that gives you credibility when they consider the 3rd.
If I said that to you, you’d say ‘you looked that up on Google, anyone can do that, and it’s well known the moon is made of rock’. But you are knowledgeable about astronomy (on a basic level at least).
This works with the KKK person because chances are the KKK person has had limited or no actual contact and understanding with black people. So he sees news reports of inner city black people doing crimes and it becomes easy to convince him black people are somehow inferior. And ‘THEY don’t want you to know the truth’ is a powerful message for someone already interested in counterculture / dislike of the mainstream.
That’s why Daryl Davis is effective- he sits down with the racist, who has a mental image of what a ‘black person’ is, and he’s not that. It’s like putting you on a rocket and flying you out to the moon and saying ‘okay we’re here, where’s the cheese?’
And that’s why violence ISN’T effective- because the racist is expecting violence, so being violent only reinforces their belief.
WWII?
Yeah, it usually doesn’t eradicate it. That’s basically never how we measure effectivity though. Being nice hasn’t either. Again, the point isn’t to change the person being attacked in these cases. It’s to show others that their views are not acceptable by society. It’s to show others that it isn’t a widely held belief and to not listen to them.
Yeah, unless we go on an all-out war against them it won’t be eradicated through violence. Growth can be slowed though. That’s why I said we need both violence and dialogue. They both can be useful tools.