Ordering people to stop being prejudiced makes them more prejudiced

[Bullmoose]

While we're on the subject of tactics, I'd suggest looking at the words of MLK:






It is painfully obvious that MLK and his CRM were the SJWs of their time in every respect. That they used all the same tactics, and got hit by all the same arguments. Much like gay marriage has seen the same points as interracial marriage be raised, it is history repeating. It is only with a half century of hindsight and rose-tinted glasses that we remember MLK as a great crusader for good, but see SJWs as disruptive rabble-rousers. The reality is that MLK was also labeled a disruptive rabble-rouser in his day, that people saw his fiery language as disturbing and threatening, that they argued he was provoking more violence and hostility from his opponents as well as his allies, that moderates agreed with his ends but not with his means. Nothing has changed. If anything the SJWs are kind of weaksauce compared to how far MLK and company were willing to go.

Click to shrink...

I don't think anyone argued that you have to be quiet in your protests. Do marches, decry the status quo, raise awareness. But the key thing here, is who do think was popularly seen as the aggressive party when dogs were unleashed upon peaceful protestors? Who were seen as the victims?

 

[Professor Vesca]

MLK's arguments actually get into what does change people's minds. There's a really interesting Yale project about cultural cognition:

cultural cognition project - home

Basically they assert that people's viewpoints will tend to slowly converge towards what cultural group they feel most closely represents them. If you think of yourself as a 'SJW' you'll end up slowly reasoning yourself into agreeing with 'SJW' arguments, if you think of yourself as a "brogressive" (or whatever they call themselves) you'll do the same with those, if you think of yourself as a Republican you'll tend to slowly move towards Republican ones. It explains the success stories of the 'befriending' paradigm better than the "people befriend someone and change their views slowly" much better I think.

Click to shrink...

Could you please link to an actual conclusion asserted by the project rather than their home page? I have sloppy joes calling to me and I dont feel like digging through their website hunting some kind of conclusion or assertion.

Not quite-they suggest a very specific method of asking people to empathize with people works, not just generally 'being nice' and it's not clear how aggressive they were. They also found that attack ads worked (just not quite as well as their specific technique). They also found that the effects weren't particularly dramatic. A fraction of a standard deviation, more or less-and if I'm reading the graphs right they were actually much more inclined to be positive towards trans people than the mean population (including the placebo respondents). So I'm going to still suggest that this is not an incredibly reliable method of changing people's minds-but then again, very little is so... you're part right. It can work. It's just that it's incredibly resource intensive and I'd want to see if it works on people who aren't already inclined towards you first.

Because that's not the problem-I don't think the social justice advocates are having a huge problem getting people already on their side to agree with them. The problem is convincing the people who aren't inclined towards you.

It's an interesting finding but it still suggests "this might be better" instead of "this is better than stoking up your base and being all kinds of mad against people."

Click to shrink...

Well yeah, if this were easy or cheap, everyone would be doing it. Its not, otherwise in the days of bear skins and stone knives different tribes would be convincing their rivals of the rightness of joining them, or giving up territory, or...

Its more effective then simply browbeating people till they agree with you.

So you've decided that the most effective way to prove me wrong is to... target people who aren't already inclined to disagree with you because targeting someone to change their mind is very very hard. However, my argument has been that attempting to change the minds of neutral observers and fence-sitters is more efficient, and attacks on your target are actually a good way to do that. So you're trying to disprove my argument... by literally using the exact tactics my argument suggests.

Click to shrink...

Are you going to address my point or police my tone?

 

[MJ12 Commando]

Could you please link to an actual conclusion asserted by the project rather than their home page? I have sloppy joes calling to me and I dont feel like digging through their website hunting some kind of conclusion or assertion.

Click to shrink...

They tell you in the second sentence what their conclusion is. "Cultural cognition refers to the tendency of individuals to conform their beliefs about disputed matters of fact (e.g., whether global warming is a serious threat; whether the death penalty deters murder; whether gun control makes society more safe or less) to values that define their cultural identities."

Well yeah, if this were easy or cheap, everyone would be doing it. Its not, otherwise in the days of bear skins and stone knives different tribes would be convincing their rivals of the rightness of joining them, or giving up territory, or...

Its more effective then simply browbeating people till they agree with you.

Click to shrink...

So it's 'more effective' yet the vast majority of still-extant groups don't actually do it, preferring the opposite tactic. If you want to suggest that a tactic is actually effective, yet completely nonexistent, you have to explain why. You're not doing that. You're basically saying "it's hard, but it's still better than other alternatives" which doesn't explain why:

1. This specific tactic is favored by society (notice that basically every society on Earth has some variation of 'be nice to other people' as an important thing)
2. Nobody actually uses it as a standard procedure, and in fact use the exact opposite.

Are you going to address my point or police my tone?

Click to shrink...

What I am doing is the exact opposite of tone policing. I am directly addressing your point when I point out that every single attempt you have made to 'prove me wrong' has been, in fact, using the exact tactics I have said are effective, and not a single attempt you have made has ever even tried to use the tactics you say are far more effective compared to the ones I suggest are cost-and-time efficient. When your beliefs in the efficacy of your chosen method of debate are so weak that you aren't even paying lip service to them, I'm not sure why you think anyone should be convinced. In fact, I'll note that I've been less actively hostile and insulting than you have. So it's actually worse-the guy who isn't convinced about the effectiveness of your chosen tactic is hewing closer to that exact tactic than the guy who espouses it as effective.

 

[Professor Vesca]

They tell you in the second sentence what their conclusion is. "Cultural cognition refers to the tendency of individuals to conform their beliefs about disputed matters of fact (e.g., whether global warming is a serious threat; whether the death penalty deters murder; whether gun control makes society more safe or less) to values that define their cultural identities."

Click to shrink...

No, thats them defining the term cultural cognition so that people know what they are talking about later on.

So it's 'more effective' yet the vast majority of still-extant groups don't actually do it, preferring the opposite tactic. If you want to suggest that a tactic is actually effective, yet completely nonexistent, you have to explain why. You're not doing that. You're basically saying "it's hard, but it's still better than other alternatives" which doesn't explain why:

1. This specific tactic is favored by society (notice that basically every society on Earth has some variation of 'be nice to other people' as an important thing)
2. Nobody actually uses it as a standard procedure, and in fact use the exact opposite.

Click to shrink...

Most people arent interested in doing the effective solution, they are interested in the easy solution. Its easy to argue and yell at people, its hard to actually try to convince them to change their mind, otherwise everyone would be doing it! I find your appeal to popularity to be...disturbing.

When you discuss things with people, short and simple are more effective in holding their interest then complex and in depth, with the exception of people already interested in the subject at hand and/or already educated as to the jargon.

If you are trying to push something on someone, you need your message to be short, simple, and to the point. This is salesman 101 stuff right here. Messages that are not easily digestible by the audience are more likely to be ignored or rejected.

What I am doing is the exact opposite of tone policing. I am directly addressing your point when I point out that every single attempt you have made to 'prove me wrong' has been, in fact, using the exact tactics I have said are effective, and not a single attempt you have made has ever even tried to use the tactics you say are far more effective compared to the ones I suggest are cost-and-time efficient. When your beliefs in the efficacy of your chosen method of debate are so weak that you aren't even paying lip service to them, I'm not sure why you think anyone should be convinced. In fact, I'll note that I've been less actively hostile and insulting than you have. So it's actually worse-the guy who isn't convinced about the effectiveness of your chosen tactic is hewing closer to that exact tactic than the guy who espouses it as effective.

Click to shrink...

And yet here we are arguing with each other. Nothing has changed, and neither you nor I have convinced the other. Draw your own conclusions.

 

[firefossil]

The goal, in political advertising and in social media screeds, is not to persaude the target of your attack.

The goal is to effect everyone else.

Click to shrink...

This. The objective of calling bigots a bunch of horrible bigots isn't to make them stop being bigots, its to sway the moderates, either with "these people are a bunch of bigots you wouldn't want to join them" or "these people are a bunch of miserable social outcasts you wouldn't want to join them".

"Being nice to people will actually allow you to change the beliefs of society" would be, quite literally, an absolutely revolutionary discovery. The scientific consensus is that basically nothing you do, short of locking someone up with you for years and torturing them, can reliably create any sort of long-term change in someone's beliefs. It is extraordinarily hard to change someone's mind. Notably, the corollary which people seem to want this article to be saying-"you can get more flies with honey than vinegar" was the biggest academic scandal of history because people desperately wanted it to be true but it turned out not to be.

Click to shrink...

Indeed. Social Justice types want to believe that you can win through empathy, compassion, and the power of friendship. Heck basically everyone short of the likes of Kratman or Solanas wants to believe that. The last thing social justice types want to admit is that the most effective strategy against bigots is the same use and abuse of political discourse and social norms that bigots used to marginalize their targets in the first place, but now aimed at bigots instead.

But the unfortunate reality is that there is a noticeable lack of honey-based political parties, only vinegar. Its also rather noticeable that movements like MLK are retcon'd into being honey when they were really vinegar, because we want to believe that winners use honey.

I don't think anyone argued that you have to be quiet in your protests. Do marches, decry the status quo, raise awareness. But the key thing here, is who do think was popularly seen as the aggressive party when dogs were unleashed upon peaceful protestors? Who were seen as the victims?

Click to shrink...

That depends on whether you ask the whites of the South or the North. The CRM didn't end with the opponents of blacks (the South) suddenly being swayed by the power of friendship and joining the herd, it ended with blacks convincing the fence-sitters (the North) to get off the fence and start enforcing the laws they'd given up on enforcing a century prior. I can assure you that the South thought that the blacks were the aggressive party both before, during, and after the CRM. Just look at how they've reacted to BLM, which is in actuality a lot a less disruptive and confrontational than the CRM. Or the endless lynchings and other assorted brutality to the passive blacks done prior.

Can you post studies that support your position then? Any studies that show that being befriended by those you hate just doesn't work( despite contrary examples)? That would actually be convincing evidence. So far you're not convincing me because your argument isn't great. Op posted a study that showed being a total dick as a tactic certainly doesn't work. You've been given several examples of where harcore true believers did indeed have their mind changed by being befriended by those they despised. And I've pointed out how being an asshole can harm you're movement long term rather thank help it. You've failed to actually prove your point, despite insisting that's it's true.

Click to shrink...

Studies? How about you name a successful honey-based political party. If this friendship thing was effective and superior, surely sooner or latter some parties somewhere would've adopted it, then outcompeted their opposition, with it spreading like wildfire. This has never happened.

 

[MJ12 Commando]

No, thats them defining the term cultural cognition so that people know what they are talking about later on.

Click to shrink...

Their definition is exactly what I wanted them around for. "People will tend to converge towards the beliefs the group they identify with have."

Most people arent interested in doing the effective solution, they are interested in the easy solution. Its easy to argue and yell at people, its hard to actually try to convince them to change their mind, otherwise everyone would be doing it! I find your appeal to popularity to be...disturbing.

When you discuss things with people, short and simple are more effective in holding their interest then complex and in depth, with the exception of people already interested in the subject at hand and/or already educated as to the jargon.

If you are trying to push something on someone, you need your message to be short, simple, and to the point. This is salesman 101 stuff right here. Messages that are not easily digestible by the audience are more likely to be ignored or rejected.

Click to shrink...

Every single culture encourages people to be 'nice' in some way or another. It's a universal axiom that people want people to be nice. Yet 'niceness-based politics' has never been seen in a successful political party. Your argument could work if there was some sort of massive cultural block against being nice, but there isn't. It's exactly the opposite-people want niceness-based parties, look at all the polls which talk about how campaigning is too negative and people hate attack ads. Yet nobody uses it. This requires a lot more than some platitudes about 'easiness' and 'effectiveness' especially since I bet most political ad makers are holding their nose when they write their ads anyhow.

And yet here we are arguing with each other. Nothing has changed, and neither you nor I have convinced the other. Draw your own conclusions.

Click to shrink...

My argument: "convincing people to change their made-up minds is hard, it is more effective in general to appeal to the fence-sitters, which can be done in ways which include vitriol."

You: *proceeds to attempt to appeal to the fence-sitters, using vitriol, while claiming simultaneously that it's more effective to try to empathize with someone and change their mind*

I think the conclusion is pretty clear when not even you actually believe in your argument enough to put your money where your mouth is.

 

[Professor Vesca]

Their definition is exactly what I wanted them around for. "People will tend to converge towards the beliefs the group they identify with have."

Click to shrink...

No shit, you dont see people who identify as conservatives associating with liberal or progressive message boards, they associate with conservative ones. How does this definition have anything to do with convincing people to change their minds?

Every single culture encourages people to be 'nice' in some way or another. It's a universal axiom that people want people to be nice. Yet 'niceness-based politics' has never been seen in a successful political party. Your argument could work if there was some sort of massive cultural block against being nice, but there isn't. It's exactly the opposite-people want niceness-based parties, look at all the polls which talk about how campaigning is too negative and people hate attack ads. Yet nobody uses it. This requires a lot more than some platitudes about 'easiness' and 'effectiveness' especially since I bet most political ad makers are holding their nose when they write their ads anyhow.

Click to shrink...

Aggressive politics can sway people who are already unsure or on the fence or who can go one way or the other. They have never convinced people who already associate with one group or the other, and they never will. Until the party or political position acts in such a way that their core feels betrays them, such as with the WBC, their core will not deviate from their stated political line.

And even then, to sway people on the fence, you still need to know your audience to best tailor your approach, otherwise you just shoot yourself in the foot.

My argument: "convincing people to change their made-up minds is hard, it is more effective in general to appeal to the fence-sitters, which can be done in ways which include vitriol."

You: *proceeds to attempt to appeal to the fence-sitters, using vitriol, while claiming simultaneously that it's more effective to try to empathize with someone and change their mind*

I think the conclusion is pretty clear when not even you actually believe in your argument enough to put your money where your mouth is.

Click to shrink...

My argument is simple. To change peoples minds on a subject who have already made up their mind, you need to befriend them first and approach the issue from their point of view, and point out how conversion can benefit them, not aggressively browbeat them and bully them into silence. I mean, no shit its hard. If it were easy everyone would be doing it already!

 

[firefossil]

I mean, no shit its hard.

Click to shrink...

So why should we do it then? If ostracizing bigots ends bigotry in a generation and playing nice with bigots ends it in two generations, I'll pick the former every time. Heck if they took the same amount, I'd petulantly pick the former every time even as the utilitarian in in me wails.

I mean just look at the bathroom laws. Being ostracized by big business intimidated Georgia's governor into vetoing his state's attempt. That's one attempt to brutalize transgenders shot down right out of the gates via the power of vinegar. It works. I have no interest in wasting my time persuading a bigot when I can instead use that time to persuade two fence-sitters or intimidate three bigots into submission.

You need to present the case that not only does honey work, but that it works better. Which in turn means that you need to explain why vinegar is used by basically every remotely successful political or social force ever.

 

[Bullmoose]

That depends on whether you ask the whites of the South or the North. The CRM didn't end with the opponents of blacks (the South) suddenly being swayed by the power of friendship and joining the herd, it ended with blacks convincing the fence-sitters (the North) to get off the fence and start enforcing the laws they'd given up on enforcing a century prior. I can assure you that the South thought that the blacks were the aggressive party both before, during, and after the CRM. Just look at how they've reacted to BLM, which is in actuality a lot a less disruptive and confrontational than the CRM. Or the endless lynchings and other assorted brutality to the passive blacks done prior.

Studies? How about you name a successful honey-based political party. If this friendship thing was effective and superior, surely sooner or latter some parties somewhere would've adopted it, then outcompeted their opposition, with it spreading like wildfire. This has never happened.

Click to shrink...

The objective of MLK was indeed to convince the fence sitters. The northerners who outnumbered the southerners. He effectively swayed popular opinion by organizing mass peaceful protests. The supporters of segregation responded extremely aggressively, and thus they supporters of segregation were quite easily portrayed as violent thugs trying silence their opponents to most of those on the sidelines. Which doesn't disprove my point. He wasn't trying to portray himself as the aggressive party and he wasn't trying to bully the segregationist until they agreed with him. It is quite obvious to everyone, even most southerners today, who the more aggressive and violent faction was. The more aggressive party lost popular support, which is why using such tactics can easily backfire.

Do you think people like this or like this are winning the support of anyone not already in their group? Are they not doing more harm for their cause than good by representing their movement in such a way?

 

[Fernandel]

As a general note to the thread:

Some of us don't like being blunt or aggressive or impolite or whatever because while it's real easy to be santimonious and aggressive over the Internet, it can often turn out dangerously of you try those same tactics with the same words in real life.

Ever gotten caught between a "antifascistic" left-wing riot and armoured riot police when the former protest your university because a high-ranking military speaker turned up? With literal torches and firecrackers and mounted riot police, shields and batons, and tear gas grenade launchers cocked and ready?

I am as "antifascistic" as you can possibly be, but at that moment, I was scared shitless and terrified and I hated every single thing possible about that cause.

And everybody trumpeting "Politeness doesn't work! You gotta be rude and aggressive to succeed!", I wonder whether you've ever been in a real-life debate where someone who shared your opinions started talking, and after a minute of ranting you just wanted to leave the room because the insults and fallacies and aggressiveness made you cringe and your hair stand on end.

Like, people have a right to be angry. They have a right to be uncompromising. They have a right to protest and to file lawsuits and to lobby and to practice civil disobedience.

But I wonder when it became acceptable, in a movement aimed at making everybody equal and to make everybody feel accepted to be a contemptuous, rude, uncivil douchebag, just because you did it "for [great] social justice!"

 

[pyrite]

This. The objective of calling bigots a bunch of horrible bigots isn't to make them stop being bigots, its to sway the moderates, either with "these people are a bunch of bigots you wouldn't want to join them" or "these people are a bunch of miserable social outcasts you wouldn't want to join them".

Indeed. Social Justice types want to believe that you can win through empathy, compassion, and the power of friendship. Heck basically everyone short of the likes of Kratman or Solanas wants to believe that. The last thing social justice types want to admit is that the most effective strategy against bigots is the same use and abuse of political discourse and social norms that bigots used to marginalize their targets in the first place, but now aimed at bigots instead.

But the unfortunate reality is that there is a noticeable lack of honey-based political parties, only vinegar. Its also rather noticeable that movements like MLK are retcon'd into being honey when they were really vinegar, because we want to believe that winners use honey.

Click to shrink...

Pretty much this. While I'm all for honey, even I've got to admit that vinegar's needed to fix things. Reconciliation is less and less likely over time, after all. Might as well go for the victory by force. As for MLK, I guess it's part of the idealization process. Nobody wants impassioned firebrand MLK, they want inspirational leader MLK to soothe them. In these trying times, I can understand why people would want less inflammatory dialogue. Very few people would want to be called wrong for their inaction, to be obligated by others to do something they consider unneeded or unnecessary.

We should take care not to overdo the vinegar, though. We've already seen in this thread people who are basically liberal but turned off by more hostile rhetoric. We win when we get most everybody to agree with us, not when we get them to march in lockstep with our beliefs. Remember that. As long as we remain the superior option, conservatism isn't going to make a comeback.

 

[firefossil]

The objective of MLK was indeed to convince the fence sitters. The northerners who outnumbered the southerners. He effectively swayed popular opinion by organizing mass peaceful protests. The supporters of segregation responded extremely aggressively, and thus they supporters of segregation were quite easily portrayed as violent thugs trying silence their opponents to most of those on the sidelines. Which doesn't disprove my point. He wasn't trying to portray himself as the aggressive party and he wasn't trying to bully the segregationist until they agreed with him. It is quite obvious to everyone, even most southerners today, who the more aggressive and violent faction was. The more aggressive party lost popular support, which is why using such tactics can easily backfire.

Click to shrink...

Letter from a Birmingham Jail was literally all about MLK responding to some moderate white priests who were complaining that MLK was being too aggressive. MLK knew that the truth of the matter was that anything other than total passiveness would be seen as aggression by some moderates, and that opponents would see even passiveness as aggression. But some degree of aggression was necessary, as MLK demonstrated. The MLK quote about the "white moderate" was addressed to people like you, who will always tell the persecuted to 'wait', or to use 'more civil means', without specifying what they are or how they work.

I didn't bother to look at your youtube videos because I already know what they contain, which is words and pictures, not attack dogs and fire hoses. Every time you compare some random youtuber to Bull Connor you are making my point for me, which is that any degree of SJW hostility is conflated as being "just as bad" as the unmitigated brutality that bigots have always favored. And people accuse SJWs of having victim complexes...

 

[Bullmoose]

Letter from a Birmingham Jail was literally all about MLK responding to some moderate white priests who were complaining that MLK was being too aggressive. MLK knew that the truth of the matter was that anything other than total passiveness would be seen as aggression by some moderates, and that opponents would see even passiveness as aggression. But some degree of aggression was necessary, as MLK demonstrated. The MLK quote about the "white moderate" was addressed to people like you, who will always tell the persecuted to 'wait', or to use 'more civil means', without specifying what they are or how they work.

I didn't bother to look at your youtube videos because I already know what they contain, which is words and pictures, not attack dogs and fire hoses. Every time you compare some random youtuber to Bull Connor you are making my point for me, which is that any degree of SJW hostility is conflated as being "just as bad" as the unmitigated brutality that bigots have always favored. And people accuse SJWs of having victim complexes...

Click to shrink...

Don't strawman me. I'm not equating modern protestors to segregationists in the extent to which they are violent, and you were the one to bring up MLK in the first place. I'm simply stating that acting like an asshole allows your opponent to easily dismiss you, and it allows the rest of society to write you off as an unreasonable. During the civil rights protests, one side was easily portrayed as the unreasonable and more violent faction, and they lost. Again, do you think the people in either of those videos are doing any favors for their cause? Who are they winning over?

 

[Fernandel]

Letter from a Birmingham Jail was literally all about MLK responding to some moderate white priests who were complaining that MLK was being too aggressive. MLK knew that the truth of the matter was that anything other than total passiveness would be seen as aggression by some moderates, and that opponents would see even passiveness as aggression. But some degree of aggression was necessary, as MLK demonstrated. The MLK quote about the "white moderate" was addressed to people like you, who will always tell the persecuted to 'wait', or to use 'more civil means', without specifying what they are or how they work.

I didn't bother to look at your youtube videos because I already know what they contain, which is words and pictures, not attack dogs and fire hoses. Every time you compare some random youtuber to Bull Connor you are making my point for me, which is that any degree of SJW hostility is conflated as being "just as bad" as the unmitigated brutality that bigots have always favored. And people accuse SJWs of having victim complexes...

Click to shrink...

Note that MLK never said anywhere that you've got to be smug and contemptuous and that he never forbade anyone to hold out a helping hand or open a listening ear across the aisle to succeed in his goal of equality.

He was uncompromising about his goals. He realised that he wouldn't achieve his goals through kindness alone, but through being more uncomprising than the opposition.

But he tried very hard not to be an uncivil, verbally or physically aggressive douchebag, he never demonised the opposition, and he was willing to listen to others. He just wasn't willing to compromise early.

There's a difference between the two.

 

[MJ12 Commando]

And everybody trumpeting "Politeness doesn't work! You gotta be rude and aggressive to succeed!", I wonder whether you've ever been in a real-life debate where someone who shared your opinions started talking, and after a minute of ranting you just wanted to leave the room because the insults and fallacies and aggressiveness made you cringe and your hair stand on end.

Like, people have a right to be angry. They have a right to be uncompromising. They have a right to protest and to file lawsuits and to lobby and to practice civil disobedience.

But I wonder when it became acceptable, in a movement aimed at making everybody equal and to make everybody feel accepted to be a contemptuous, rude, uncivil douchebag, just because you did it "for [great] social justice!"

Click to shrink...

Yes, being aggressive can backfire. Being aggressive can be misused. What a lot of people seem to want to believe is that basically any level of aggression is 'misusing it' which gets to the point where, well, if anything is being 'too aggressive' arguments like the OP's really stop holding much water. Look at the relatively mild criticism that people are getting and how they're flipping out about it. A lot of social justice today has been more about getting people who have no opinion to sign up with the winning team, not 'convincing bigots.' And that, I think, is at least as important as convincing bigots and much easier to do.

Note that MLK never said anywhere that you've got to be smug and contemptuous and that he never forbade anyone to hold out a helping across the aisle to succeed in his goal of equality.

He was uncompromising about his goals. He realised that he wouldn't achieve his goals through kindness alone, but through being more uncomprising than the people.

But he tried very hard not to be an uncivil, verbally aggressive douchebag, he never demonised the opposition, and he was willing to listen to others. He just wasn't willing to compromise early.

There's a difference between the two.

Click to shrink...

Man Fernandel, even firefossil, who's the most strident advocate of being aggressive here, isn't saying that nobody should ever be uncivil. And I'm pretty sure his plan was, entirely, to demonize the opposition. Under the standards of 'aggressive' or 'authoritarian' behavior being given by the OP, the "I have a dream" speech is exactly that kind of behavior. Like, the standard for 'being an uncivil verbally aggressive douchebag' is somewhere around "implies that any behavior by your opponents may actually be bad behavior." That's why my argument is that this is an impractical way of going about things.

 

[Susano]

Ever gotten caught between a "antifascistic" left-wing riot and armoured riot police when the former protest your university because a high-ranking military speaker turned up? With literal torches and firecrackers and mounted riot police, shields and batons, and tear gas grenade launchers cocked and ready?

I am as "antifascistic" as you can possibly be, but at that moment, I was scared shitless and terrified and I hated every single thing possible about that cause.

Click to shrink...

That's because the Antifa are not "antifascists" but goddamn leftwing extremist scum. They are not an example of SJWs or people fighting a good fight, they're extremist would be terrorists. So this has nothing to do with what tactics sane people should use for a good cause.

 

[Drachyench]

Really now? Because if you boil it down:

Administrator: Do not use this word in this context. In said context, the word has bad implications and use of it will be punished.
User the policy was implemented for: Thank You!
Users impacted: Fuck, you, I will not be told what I can and can't say!

Someone in that very thread said that they hadn't used the word in over a decade, didn't disagree with the premise, but the mere fact that they were being told not to use a word made them want to dig in their heels and resist. It's rather obviously applicable.

Click to shrink...

Yes, and as I said: It's applicable to discredit the idea that (to use current vocabulary) "honey totally works better than vinegar". There was no rude ordering of people "stop being prejudiced" (hell, there was no thought-policing or singling out of ideologies at all!), the thread was an appeal for people to not use words that's meanings / implications in certain contexts can hurt others, didn't even involve thought-correction attempts or shaming / ostracism. It was, very literally, no different from a business putting out a notice saying they request consumers and staff on their private property's premises avoid using racial slurs to describe persons while directly occupying aforementioned business' premises.

The reaction of those displaying more negative elements... was not acceptance. It was - in some cases - not even begrudging tolerance. It was - again in some cases - to insist that being expected to not use a word with negative connotations while on SV is an attack on them, cudgeling them for their prejudices, and to propose purposefully using the word anyways because fuck human decency . Such triumph of honey, much wow.

 

[Rat King]

Really now? Because if you boil it down:

Administrator: Do not use this word in this context. In said context, the word has bad implications and use of it will be punished.
User the policy was implemented for: Thank You!
Users impacted: Fuck, you, I will not be told what I can and can't say!

Someone in that very thread said that they hadn't used the word in over a decade, didn't disagree with the premise, but the mere fact that they were being told not to use a word made them want to dig in their heels and resist. It's rather obviously applicable.

Click to shrink...

I remember people throwing a shitfit because HOW DARE THE ADMINISTRATION TELL ME THIS IS THOUGHT POLICING ARGL GARBL OUTRAGE for no good reason. It was basically a heads-up clarification that in certain contexts the word is not acceptable and will be infracted (and has been in the past).

The resulting shitstorm on a thread specifically meant to thank the staff for the heads-up was all out of proportion because I guess being polite isn't a thing we do anymore because THOUGHTCRIME CENSORSHIP MUH FREE SPEECH.

 

[Dakkaface]

Yes, and as I said: It's applicable to discredit the idea that (to use current vocabulary) "honey totally works better than vinegar". There was no rude ordering of people "stop being prejudiced" (hell, there was no thought-policing or singling out of ideologies at all!), the thread was an appeal for people to not use words that's meanings / implications in certain contexts can hurt others, didn't even involve thought-correction attempts or shaming / ostracism. It was, very literally, no different from a business putting out a notice saying they request consumers and staff on their private property's premises avoid using racial slurs to describe persons while directly occupying aforementioned business' premises.

The reaction of those displaying more negative elements... was not acceptance. It was - in some cases - not even begrudging tolerance. It was - again in some cases - to insist that being expected to not use a word with negative connotations while on SV is an attack on them, cudgeling them for their prejudices, and to propose purposefully using the word anyways because fuck human decency . Such triumph of honey, much wow.

Click to shrink...

So you didn't read the article then? Because the thread's derail into rudeness and tone message has nothing to do with what the article says. It says nothing on honey vs. vinegar. The experiment is about authoritarian vs. autonomous actions. Telling people to stop being predjudiced causes backlash and is counterproductive. It doesn't matter how polite you are when you do it. Explaining to people how being open and inclusive is beneficial to them gets better results as it gets them to do it themselves. Tell me, is an administrator telling you 'Don't use <word> in the context of people' an authoritarian or autonomous action?

I remember people throwing a shitfit because HOW DARE THE ADMINISTRATION TELL ME THIS IS THOUGHT POLICING ARGL GARBL OUTRAGE for no good reason. It was basically a heads-up clarification that in certain contexts the word is not acceptable and will be infracted (and has been in the past).

The resulting shitstorm on a thread specifically meant to thank the staff for the heads-up was all out of proportion because I guess being polite isn't a thing we do anymore because THOUGHTCRIME CENSORSHIP MUH FREE SPEECH.

Click to shrink...

Congratulations on utterly missing the point of the article.

 

[Memphet'ran]

There are two methods of changing people's minds which have been studied in-depth and have been found to possess consistent effectiveness. One of them involves being isolated for extended periods of time and having the viewpoint beaten into you via brainwashing. The other involves presenting society a fait accompli-the Cambodia example.

Click to shrink...

Your arguments leave me wondering how reform movements are supposed to get started in the first place in your worldview. Bullying people into submission only works if you already have power.

To get big and powerful enough to bully people into submission, Christianity had to spend a long time growing in a world where Christians were a tiny and despised religious minority who got publicly executed to the cheers of approving crowds.

 

[Drachyench]

Telling people to stop being prejudiced

Click to shrink...

The thread and the policy change it was a response to told nobody to stop being prejudiced.

That's where the crux of your argument keeps failing: At no point is anyone told to stop holding biases agsinst anyone or shamed for having them. The whole point of them in general was to make others feel welcome / share their thanks for not having to deal with being inferred as duplicitous / nefarious, and involved no shaming at all outside the "If Danbooru can do it" line.

Tell me, is an administrator telling you 'Don't use <word> in the context of people' an authoritarian or autonomous action?

Click to shrink...

Authoritarian, unfortunately for you in this case with no relevance to confronting people over their prejudices. Unless your argument is that schools telling people "Don't synonymously refer to [demographic] as [slur] in our institutes" is overly confrontational, I'm not quite sure how your example is s case-in-point for the OP?

 

[Aaron Peori]

And everybody trumpeting "Politeness doesn't work! You gotta be rude and aggressive to succeed!", I wonder whether you've ever been in a real-life debate where someone who shared your opinions started talking, and after a minute of ranting you just wanted to leave the room because the insults and fallacies and aggressiveness made you cringe and your hair stand on end.

Like, people have a right to be angry. They have a right to be uncompromising. They have a right to protest and to file lawsuits and to lobby and to practice civil disobedience.

But I wonder when it became acceptable, in a movement aimed at making everybody equal and to make everybody feel accepted to be a contemptuous, rude, uncivil douchebag, just because you did it "for [great] social justice!"

Click to shrink...

Being in a room alone with someone who disagrees with you and arguing with them is the exact worst time to be attempting confrontational tactics. We've said this repeatedly. You're not going to convince them and there is no third party for you to convince so you are literally wasting your time and giving yourself stress for no reason. Why would you do that?

And we're not actually interested in making everyone feel accepted. That's just more "You have to tolerate intolerance" hogwash. If someone is a bigot I do not want them to be accepted. I have no sympathy for literal Nazis.

Your arguments leave me wondering how reform movements are supposed to get started in the first place in your worldview. Bullying people into submission only works if you already have power.

To get big and powerful enough to bully people into submission, Christianity had to spend a long time growing in a world where Christians were a tiny and despised religious minority who got publicly executed to the cheers of approving crowds.

Click to shrink...

Simply put? You unite and endure and make enough of a nuisance of yourself that eventually the leadership of your society finds it easier to lash out at the people harming you than at you.

The Civil Rights Act won by getting the federal government to come down on the bigoted state governments like the proverbial ton of bricks. They did this by being disruptive and demanding enough that they managed to make the feds prefer them to the alternative.

Remember always that the goal of the government is not justice, its order and continuity. If you are a sufficient threat to that order then the government will either eliminate or incorporate you. Which they do is based on how many times you are willing to be thrown to the (non metaphorical in one case you cited) lions.

 

[Memphet'ran]

Remember always that the goal of the government is not justice, its order and continuity. If you are a sufficient threat to that order then the government will either eliminate or incorporate you. Which they do is based on how many times you are willing to be thrown to the (non metaphorical in one case you cited) lions.

Click to shrink...

Again, this only works if you already have a power base, numbers if nothing else.

My point is, if people never change their minds except in response to massive social pressure, how did Christians ever get from being .001% of the Roman Empire to being 10% of it?

 

[Pidl]

Again, this only works if you already have a power base, numbers if nothing else.

My point is, if people never change their minds except in response to massive social pressure, how did Christians ever get from being .001% of the Roman Empire to being 10% of it?

Click to shrink...

"Judaism reinvented, now with 20% more foreskin."?

 

[Memphet'ran]

To answer my own question, I figure before it got powerful enough to do effective bullying early Christianity mostly spread by being appealing to people. That is to say, it spread by this sort of strategy:

a more personal form (explaining why being non-prejudiced is enjoyable and personally valuable).

Click to shrink...