Some Dopers here may have had experiences like this:
Someone asks how or why Germans could have ever gotten behind something as evil as Nazism. You reply - well, there were understandable reasons for it - Germany was humiliated and angry after World War I, felt Versailles was unfair treatment, the nation was in hyperinflation and economic ruin, people craved a strongman, and Hitler, who blamed ‘traitors’ at home and enemies abroad, was just the man for them - etc. etc. - and then before you know it, people are accusing you of condoning or even supporting Nazism.
Ditto for other behaviors - if you point out that married people who have an affair often do so because they feel that their spouse is not providing something they need - be it affection, sex, respect or excitement - then you are accused of condoning cheating.
Ditto for many crimes, or certain political views, or just things that an audience finds abhorrent.
How do you explain the reasons people do something bad without coming across as defending something bad?
Personally I just don’t care anymore. If playing that form of Lucifer’s Barrister makes me some level of Satan in your eyes I have an anatomical region you are more than welcome to kiss. At it approaches my general goal which is to find out what YOU think and why. So have at it.
I don’t have that experience. It’s all about the framing, and the making sure you don’t gloss over the horrible parts. I also think it really helps to never express any sort of identity with the “bad” actors. “When people are unemployed for a long time, and frustrated . . . .” works a lot better than "If I were unemployed, I can see how I would . . . "
Finally, you have to listen to people. IME, 99% Devil’s Advocates are annoying because of their condescending “well, actually” approach, not the topic.
When I was in college, I had an assignment where I was acting as a representative of the Russian government defending the Russia’s actions in Chechnya. I put it in terms of the American civil war and compared Russia’s actions to those of Lincoln and people in the class lost their shit, I almost stopped in the middle to say “uh guys, I’m playing a part here.”
I’ve never had that reaction, but if I did, my response would be, “Why did you ask in the first place then? Did you expect the answer to be Germans became Nazis because they all became evil at the same time all of a sudden for no reason?”
If I say something like “How can people be so damned racist?!”, the last thing I want to hear is a dry exposition on humankind’s tendency towards tribalism, like I’m some kind of fool who has never sat through a history class before.
“Some Dopers” “may” have had experiences “like this”? Hmmm.
Is your question meant to solicit advice on how not to come across as condoning something you explain? Or is it a rhetorical device you’re using to criticize those who misinterpret you?
It’s a chance to point out how easy it is to follow the “us” group and demonize the “them” group. There is a part of human nature that wants to belong to “us” and destroy “them”. We must always be vigilant that we are not letting that happen again.
And what is “bad”? Would this topic’s premise apply to explaining Islam? Or Censorship? Or recreational Drugs? How to distinguish that which is demonstrably and empirically “bad”, from that which is held to be bad by your present audience? Is the answer to the OP the same, in either case?
A certain Montana state Rep. Rodney Garcia says the Constitution says socialists should be shot or at least jailed. When asked where in the Constitution it says that, he didn’t or couldn’t answer.
Professor Anthony Johnstone, law professor at University of Montana, explains where he might have gotten that idea: That it’s a common misinterpretation of the Treason Clause in Article III.
Will Professor Johnstone now be shit upon for “condoning” Rodney Garcia’s view that the Constitution says socialists should be shot?
Sure, but no one is trying to defeat the Nazis these days. Nine times out of ten, the Devil’s Advocate type doesn’t have any new insight, or say anything his audience wasn’t aware of. A shallow pop psychology analysis isn’t a huge help against rising fascists.
Explain the reasons. If (when) someone thinks you’re obviously one of “them” because you seem to understand them so well, just stop talking because they are too stupid to understand the concept of “know the enemy”. You’re wasting you breath trying to answer a question they had no means of comprehending the answer to. But at least now you know that about them. The absolute worst thing you can do in that situation is to try and reassure the inquisitive moron that you were just passing along the insight they requested, because then they’ll accuse you of trying to walk it all back.
True… but there are also times when people may truly not understand- like for example, the Nazis w.r.t. the larger German populace in pre-war Germany.
Explaining WHY the Nazis rose to power, how they stayed there, and why their actions were tolerated is NOT the same thing as condoning them or taking their side.
I think there’s a set of people these days who desperately want to reduce everything to a black and white binary choice. So in their minds, they think of it as being a situation where if you don’t totally condemn the Nazis AND everyone who tacitly went along with them (i.e. most of the German populace in that period), then you’re condoning all of it.
Which is absurd; there WERE understandable reasons why the Nazis came to power, and explaining those isn’t at all the same thing as condoning anything, nor is it expressing sympathy.
I think it’s going to be more in how the message is received as opposed to the message itself. I think you’ve explained it quite well in fact and I can tell your Nazi membership is not at all up to date.
(sorry had to make a little bit of light of it)
