News TLJ Negative Buzz Amplified by Russian Trolls, Study Finds

[Awesome Possum]

People who say bigoted things are labeled bigots. The problem with bigotry is that bigots think they’re right and fully justified to say those things. Labeling them that is far from bigotry and if you find yourself incorrectly labeled as such, you might want to see why you got labeled that and make sure it doesn’t happen again.

I know some people seem to think it’s just casually tossed around, but it’s not. It’s just that a lot of hatred has become more open. Denying that is denying reality where actual Nazis are marching in the streets and people have been killed by them. I hear it so often that “oh they just call people they disagree with bigots”, then tell me exactly why someone called you a bigot. What are the exact words you said that caused that?

 

[fireproof78]

Unfortunately, calling people bigots serves no purpose here and is in itself a form of bigotry, a way to isolate a person or group, to label them and in more recent years it's used as an assertion without evidence. It is ineffective. Calling someone a bigot is not used as a tool to teach but as another form of name calling.

There is a difference, to my mind, of calling someone a "bigot" and calling out bigoted behavior. One constitutes a personal attack, and name callings (as you put it) and the other an opportunity to teach.

However, humans, by their nature, prefer labels. So, a bigot is a bigot and gets treated differently, a right winger gets treated differently, a left wing radical differently, sexists, etc. I absolutely agree that it is ineffective because our brains just file things in the appropriate box rather than treating the person as, well, a person. This cuts both ways, and knows no bounds in terms of race, creed, gender, etc.

ETA: Really, it's just tribalism in another form.

 

[BillJ]

Unfortunately, calling people bigots serves no purpose here and is in itself a form of bigotry, a way to isolate a person or group, to label them and in more recent years it's used as an assertion without evidence. It is ineffective. Calling someone a bigot is not used as a tool to teach but as another form of name calling.

If one says bigoted things, then they are a bigot. If they don't want to own it, then they need to quit saying bigoted things.

Fairly simple.

 

[ALF]

A propaganda term used by the right to demonize the basic act of courtesy and consideration toward people outside one's own in-group. It used to be called what it actually is: politeness.

It's really interesting, this summarization. Do others share this definition of politically correctness? (The question was, I believe, what is 'political correctness'?)

All sides should value politeness. It's absence leaves us with vulgarity. It makes one wonder, what society values vulgarity before politeness.

 

[Trekkin]

All sides should value politeness. It's absence leaves us with vulgarity. It makes one wonder, what society values vulgarity before politeness.

Societies that have tended to value justice over tradition, for a start.

When suffragettes were throwing themselves under carriages, or African-Americans essentially took a sledge-hammer to the economy of Montgomery, and trans-women chucked their fucking shoe at police...do you think they were considered polite?

To be ‘polite,’ is literally attempting to conform with the behaviour of the most privileged stations (hence, ‘polite society’.) Protests - the big and smal l- of those very people and behaviours, can be non-violent. They can even be respectful or civil. But they are never ‘polite.’

Besides. When your intended audience is demonstrably infantile, it’s only considerate to convey your message in small, easily-understood words.

 

[fireproof78]

All sides should value politeness. It's absence leaves us with vulgarity. It makes one wonder, what society values vulgarity before politeness.

There comes a time where being blunt must trump politeness in order for one to be heard. This requires a balance of what is the most effective way to communicate one's needs and position. I would hope that society would value all opinions but history demonstrates this not to be the case. So, there are times when vulgarity is necessary.

 

[Saul]

If one says bigoted things, then they are a bigot. If they don't want to own it, then they need to quit saying bigoted things.

Fairly simple.

Good for you that you have the freedom to call or not call someone a bigot. Wat does it achieve? Some self satisfaction? A way to release your own anger at someone?

People who hate gay people are homophobes. Calling them such isn't going to stop their behavior or disgusting way of thinking. Sure, we can label them as such and it's pretty obvious already who homophobes are. Telling them they are does what exactly?

There is a difference, to my mind, of calling someone a "bigot" and calling out bigoted behavior. One constitutes a personal attack, and name callings (as you put it) and the other an opportunity to teach.

Right.
If we let hate rule our actions and words then there will be no teaching, it will be us verses them and it will be a circle of hate. Everyone loses.

 

[Trekkin]

Sure, we can label them as such and it's pretty obvious already who homophobes are.

Except the -ists and -phobes of the world don’t tend to know that they are. Or at least, they claim not to. Hence ‘I’m not racist, I’m insulted, I’m the victim, blah, blah, blah.’

If they want to claim ignorance, then they - and anyone who happens to be watching - can get an education. Because as anyone who has ever raised a kid knows: an even more useless approach to changing bad behaviour, is just never addressing it in the first place.

And if they’re don’t? Then everyone now knows they’re just engaging in bad faith.

Just an added aside: Why does this repeated refrain of ‘You can’t change that one guy!’, act like anyone on the internet is ever only engaging one guy? Not being the way any media works aside, that attitude is the sort of naive dumbassery that leads to ‘I can’t believe I got fired over a Facebook status!’

You’re not having a private conversation or debate, ya dummies. Your broadcasting, with a potential audience of ‘everyone.’ In the Internet Age, it’s downright dangerous to be that web-unsavvy.

 

[BillJ]

People who hate gay people are homophobes. Calling them such isn't going to stop their behavior or disgusting way of thinking. Sure, we can label them as such and it's pretty obvious already who homophobes are. Telling them they are does what exactly?

You mean calling them out in public? No one likes to have their views they aren't proud of paraded around for all to see. Repugnant people are repugnant, and should be treated as such.

They have the right to feel and to say whatever they want, they don't get to escape repercussions from those actions.

 

[fireproof78]

It's a difference of what is effective and what creates a defensive reaction vs. an open dialog.

 

[BillJ]

It's a difference of what is effective and what creates a defensive reaction vs. an open dialog.

I've yet to see a true racist/misogynist that you can have a "open dialogue" with. Because you are attacking (with cause) their fundamental way of life.

 

[fireproof78]

I've yet to see a true racist/misogynist that you can have a "open dialogue" with. Because you are attacking (with cause) their fundamental way of life.

I've read stories. It certainly doesn't start open but there needs to be a place of acceptance of them as a human being because they are used to being attacked. They expect to be attacked. Loving them is unexpected. Love the sinner hate the sin kind of thing.

 

[JD]

Most of the -ists/-phobes I've seen aren't willing to have an open conversation. If they were that open minded in they probably wouldn't be -ists/-phobes in the first place.

 

[DigificWriter]

This idea that you can't call out poisonous behavior and viewpoints because doing so "only makes the problem worse" is patently ludicrous and stupid.

 

[fireproof78]

This idea that you can't call out poisonous behavior and viewpoints because doing so "only makes the problem worse" is patently ludicrous and stupid.

That's not what's being argued though (at least, not what I have read). My only point is to treat these people as people, and their viewpoints as separate from the person. Treat the person with respect and dignity as a human being, even if their ideas are abhorrent to you.

Most of the -ists/-phobes I've seen aren't willing to have an open conversation. If they were that open minded in they probably wouldn't be -ists/-phobes in the first place.

Probably not yet. But, if we start by attacking their positions and things they hold dear, then people are on the defensive. Even people who agree on things can fight if they are in a defensive mode. Just ask my wife!

It's not a matter of being open minded. It's treating them like a person.

 

[Trekkin]

Treat the person with respect and dignity as a human being,

Thing is, publically criticising them doesn’t deny them ‘respect or dignity.’ That’s just part of being human. It’s how we learn. Our ability to comprehend ‘cause -> consequence’ is one of the reasons where not still crawling around on our bellies in the mud.

TERF, racist, sexist etc, aren’t even insults. They can be said derisively, but they’re hardly the same as say...a slur. Which has no use as a word other than being insulting. People ‘shut down’ because they don’t want to examine their behaviour.

Which is normal...to a point. Thing is, most reasonable people will calm down, or start to have the message click after they hear the same criticism enough. Bigots don’t, because being unreasonable (as in ‘cannot be reasoned with’) is what makes them bigots.

And the things your talking about them ‘valuing dearly,’ is little shit like ‘me getting electrically shocked until I’m traumatised out of having sex.’ Which is actually, you know....dangerous. To me. Do you expect kids ‘politely reason’ the mother that’s trying to ‘correct them’ by forcing them to gargle bleach? Or should they scream, fight, and run as fast as they fucking can?

People with some degree of power, can afford to be ‘polite.’ Expecting victims to act anything other than defensively when faced with a direct threat to their wellbeing, is just fucking cruel.

Especially when all they’re doing, is not allowing another person to ‘pretty up’ the fact that they want to treat their fellow humans worse than dogs, based on nothing more than irrational hatred or fear.

Again: We expect toddlers - with the their half formed brains - to grow and learn as they’re educated about what they’ve done wrong, and face (possibly unenjoyable, but not damaging) consequences for doing bad things. How is it respectful, to have lower standards for adults?

 

[fireproof78]

Thing is, publically criticising them doesn’t deny them ‘respect or dignity.’ That’s just part of being human. It’s how we learn. Our ability to comprehend ‘cause -> consequence’ is one of the reasons where not still crawling around on our bellies in the mud.

TERF, racist, sexist etc, aren’t even insults. They can be said derisively, but they’re hardly the same as say...a slur. Which has no use as a word other than being insulting. People ‘shut down’ because they don’t want to examine their behaviour.

Which is normal...to a point. Thing is, most reasonable people will calm down, or start to have the message click after they hear the same criticism enough. Bigots don’t, because being unreasonable (as in ‘cannot be reasoned with’) is what makes them bigots.

And the things your talking about them ‘valuing dearly,’ is little shit like ‘me getting electrically shocked until I’m traumatised out of having sex.’ Which is actually, you know....dangerous. To me. Do you expect kids ‘politely reason’ the mother that’s trying to ‘correct them’ by forcing them to gargle bleach? Or should they scream, fight, and run as fast as they fucking can?

People with some degree of power, can afford to be ‘polite.’ Expecting victims to act anything other than defensively when faced with a direct threat to their wellbeing, is just fucking cruel.

Especially when all they’re doing, is not allowing another person to ‘pretty up’ the fact that they want to treat their fellow humans worse than dogs, based on nothing more than irrational hatred or fear.

I appreciate the sentiment. I'm not telling victims of bigots to be polite. Far from it. They absolutely need to use their power to scream and fight back.

The problem is, as I see it, a lack of willingness on the part of people (such as myself) who do have power and who are not willing to engage due to just labels on the person.

Please bear in mind that I'm am not talking as a society. I get the society labeling and shouting down the behaviors. I'm talking on a personal level, when we meet people with bigoted attitudes to avoid labels that ostracize them from our dialog and try to have honest discussion. And the only way that works if there is a modicum human respect even towards them as people, even though their ideas are abhorrent to use.

 

[Trekkin]

Here’s the thing: even allies need to be wary about too much engagement.

If your talking to a deluded soul, whose problem is mostly rooted in ignorance? You’re probably fine. You’ll likely be frustrated, but otherwise fine.

If you’re fully and emotionally engage with someone who is malicious, or just wilfully neck-deep in propaganda or a culture (particularly the ones that build up around cults of personality)? Then you could be in danger. Because you’re also the target in that case. They’ll be trying to recruit you.

And step #1 for hooking unwitting dopes? “I don’t have a set agenda, I’m just here for open discussion.”

The frustrating thing is, their methods for recruiting followers and spreading hate work. Theyve changed very little over the centuries for that very reason. Very few people are ‘too smart’ or ‘too woke’ to be ‘safe’ from them, and by engaging in public you’re also giving it a platform.

Which is why the typical advice for ‘should you debate bigots?’ Is...don’t. Not directly. Focus on countering the misinformation, and making their beliefs so sociably undesirable and powerless that the propaganda that appeals to the non-hardcore in the first place becomes ineffective.

Meat-suit interactions between friends are a bit different, but this post is long enough as it is.

 

[fireproof78]

Which is why the typical advice for ‘should you debate bigots?’ Is...don’t. Not directly. Focus on countering the misinformation, and making their beliefs so sociably undesirable and powerless that the propaganda that appeals to the non-hardcore in the first place becomes ineffective.

As in all things there is a balance. I agree that countering misinformation is essential. And I can speak from a community that kicked out Neo Nazis. I saw how it all worked.


On a personal level, there is a place of love and kindness despite the rhetoric. And, as hard as this is to accept, they are still people.

 

[Trekkin]

That’s the thing though: they’re not ‘condemned.’ You don’t walk into a bar, and everyone instantly knows that you think lesbians would be fixed if they just had sex with men. Getting blocked on Twitter, is hardly a scarlet letter.

If you find that you can only ever speak in an echo chamber of homophobes, then your pretty obviously only ever talking about that. Or you’ve excluded yourself from wider societies over one issue. Which is very much a self-induced problem.

Plus, the people surrounding them are people too. With finite time on earth. And they have the right to not waste their time with this crazy person who apparently refuses to shut up about ‘the blahs.‘ Bigotry aside, most people also just don’t like hanging around with people that talk at them or over them like a nodding prop. That’s also ‘not polite.’

I mean...I like pineapple on pizza. Lots of people don’t. You think I’m condemned to an echo chamber just because a couple of people go ‘ya pineapple living freak’?

I’m only ‘condemned’ if I’m supremely maladjusted, chuck a shit fit, and run off to start a ‘Worship the pineapple-loving president who will throw the haters in Gitmo!’ group. And then ban anyone who goes ‘you know, maybe it isn’t the best combination with salami...’

In which case, I don’t need internet randos to be polite or friendly with me. I need treatment. Especially once members of my group start murdering their loving parents for trying to deter them.