What's the best way to fight hate?

[adaher]

One of the problems I have with the way that we go about combatting hate is that how harsh we are in combatting it is directly proportional to how few people hold a particular hateful view. For example, since outright white supremacists are a pretty small group, we come down on them like a ton of bricks. But if it’s a large group, or perhaps even a majority, well then we tread a little more lightly, use more reasoned debate tactics.

Take the gay rights movement. Up until the 1990s, it was legal in most places to discriminate against gays in any situation, from jobs to housing to whatever. Gay marriage wasn’t even on the radar. There were no hate crimes protections. Even most people who didn’t actively hate gays were likely to hold beliefs that it was “unnatural” or generally icky. Gays in the military? No way. Robert Byrd thundered from the floor of the Senate, “Homosexuality is an abomination!” Some people just learn more slowly than others I guess.

Now obviously, in a climate like that boycotts, outing haters, trying to get people fired, condemning people as bigots, is counterproductive. So activists tend to avoid confronting all but the worst examples, while using the incredibly innovative tactic of reasoned debate to convince everyone else.

But then, what happens when we reach a critical mass of acceptance? Well, for those who are a little slower, the knives come out. I saw this tipping point around the time Obama endorsed gay marriage. Being against gay marriage went from a socially acceptable form of bigotry to a pretty dangerous thing to say out loud, or even support privately(see: Mozilla’s CEO getting fired for supporting Prop 8).

So, is this a productive way to evolve on civil rights? Personally, I think there are many problems with switching tactics once the good side wins. One of them is simple cowardice: lay low and speak softly in the minority, stamp out disagreement when in the majority? On the other hand, once a societal consensus has been reached, it does seem to me that this is not a debate that should be continually reopened. We’ve definitely reached that point on the basic aspects of race relations. I’m not sure what debate I could have with a white supremacist. Actually, I do know, because I’ve talked to some: they are batshit crazy and don’t listen to reason. But people who still have problems with gays, it’s not always like that. Some are coming from a place of pure hate and can never be moved, but others are still just under some misconceptions. Currently. a TON of us are still under some misconceptions about the trans community, and my own ignorance about the trans community is still a mile wide. I’m sure the questions I ask can sound offensive, but I really do want to understand before I decide for sure what I think.

I think a second issue is forcing hate into the shadows. You know, it’s funny, about half of African-Americans I talk to prefer the hate to be out in the open, whereas most whites seem to want it swept under the rug. My own position, maybe informed by my Jewishness, is that I also prefer Nazis to be out and proud. Not so I know who they are(which sounds vaguely sinister, I don’t want to hurt these people), but so I know how many there are and how much sympathy there is for them. I know a lot more people sympathize with them than feel safe admitting it. But why shouldn’t they feel safe? Does making them feel unsafe make them less likely to sympathize?

So I propose for debate that the correct way to confront hate is to not change our tactics too much from when we were originally fighting it. Peaceful counterprotests, work through the system, engage those who disagree in good faith, and condemn hatred, while not seeking extraordinary punishment simply for having those beliefs and expressing them. Of course, those of us who aren’t consciously racist are the vast majority so in some ways we should use our majority power to try to change behavior. But I don’t think we should cross the line into intimidation, which was their tactic when they were in the majority.

[Leaper]

First problem that I see is that, as I’ve mentioned in other threads, there are a good number of minorities who have lost faith in the system, who believe that the country in general is still horribly, fundamentally racist, and that those in power are now openly supporting those racists. I don’t see how, to them, your proposal isn’t incredibly naive at best and complicit with white supremacy at worst.

Part of the problem with “engaging those who disagree in good faith” is that whether certain groups of people have the right to be alive isn’t a mere political difference of opinion, like whether the VAT is too high and whether liquor stores should be open on Sunday. How is wanting large amounts of the population dead something one can feasibly debate in good faith? Why should anyone suppose that those who have those beliefs have any good faith at all?

[adaher]

I acknowledge that flaw, did so a little in my OP. I’m not sure what the happy medium is between reasoned debate and actively combatting hate, but I do know it’s not forcing it into the shadows. I think people who say this really should be out in the open have a point.

Also, I’m not sure African-Americans are losing faith in the system because there were protests at Charlottesville that turned violent. It’s because we have a President who seems to be on the side of the haters, and the police response to the white supremacists was notably timid, whereas they would have been much tougher on BLM protesters that got out of hand. I’ve read complaints about those issues a lot. Complaints that Nazis can protest openly I’ve read almost exclusively from white writers.

[Leaper]

So a member of an aggrieved minority, who already feels under siege by the country, its citizens, and its systems of power, asks you how allowing people to openly advocate his murder, especially in the current atmosphere, benefits him more than it hurts him. How do you respond? If you want to get traction with the left, I think you need a good answer.

Oh, and I agree that minorities aren’t losing faith in the system because of Charlottesville. Those who have, I gather, lost faith in it long ago due to a hundred thousand injustices, large and small, every day, that went totally unpunished and ignored.

[adaher]

Well, we allow people to advocate for murder already, as long as they don’t cross the line into incitement. If someone has lost faith in the system due to the 1st amendment I’m not sure how we’re supposed to help with that.

And again, I don’t see the aggrieved minority calling for this stuff to be squelched or forced back into the shadows. They want us to change, not hide our pathologies.

[adaher]

Also, I’m not really addressing the left, since the left is what the left is. They want to destroy their enemies. That’s one area where the right and the left are equivalent. They will debate when they have to, but if they can just ruin people they will(see: Dixie Chicks, Van Jones). This is for reasonable people without much of an agenda. We’ve kinda been trained to want to force hate into the shadows and I’m just not sure it’s the best way. Especially given how it’s roaring back with the ascension of Donald Trump. Obviously, a lot more people have retrograde views on race than we thought. Or maybe some aren’t surprised at all. But it does seem to me that if you’re going to force hate into the shadows, you might have wanted to fix the wee little problem with that strategy known as anonymous voting.

[FlikTheBlue]

@adaher

One of the problems I have with the way that we go about combatting hate is that how harsh we are in combatting it is directly proportional to how few people hold a particular hateful view. For example, since outright white supremacists are a pretty small group, we come down on them like a ton of bricks. But if it’s a large group, or perhaps even a majority, well then we tread a little more lightly, use more reasoned debate tactics.

Take the gay rights movement. Up until the 1990s, it was legal in most places to discriminate against gays in any situation, from jobs to housing to whatever. Gay marriage wasn’t even on the radar. There were no hate crimes protections. Even most people who didn’t actively hate gays were likely to hold beliefs that it was “unnatural” or generally icky. Gays in the military? No way. Robert Byrd thundered from the floor of the Senate, “Homosexuality is an abomination!” Some people just learn more slowly than others I guess.

Now obviously, in a climate like that boycotts, outing haters, trying to get people fired, condemning people as bigots, is counterproductive. So activists tend to avoid confronting all but the worst examples, while using the incredibly innovative tactic of reasoned debate to convince everyone else.

But then, what happens when we reach a critical mass of acceptance? Well, for those who are a little slower, the knives come out. I saw this tipping point around the time Obama endorsed gay marriage. Being against gay marriage went from a socially acceptable form of bigotry to a pretty dangerous thing to say out loud, or even support privately(see: Mozilla’s CEO getting fired for supporting Prop 8).

So, is this a productive way to evolve on civil rights? Personally, I think there are many problems with switching tactics once the good side wins. One of them is simple cowardice: lay low and speak softly in the minority, stamp out disagreement when in the majority? On the other hand, once a societal consensus has been reached, it does seem to me that this is not a debate that should be continually reopened. We’ve definitely reached that point on the basic aspects of race relations. I’m not sure what debate I could have with a white supremacist. Actually, I do know, because I’ve talked to some: they are batshit crazy and don’t listen to reason. But people who still have problems with gays, it’s not always like that. Some are coming from a place of pure hate and can never be moved, but others are still just under some misconceptions. Currently. a TON of us are still under some misconceptions about the trans community, and my own ignorance about the trans community is still a mile wide. I’m sure the questions I ask can sound offensive, but I really do want to understand before I decide for sure what I think.

I think a second issue is forcing hate into the shadows. You know, it’s funny, about half of African-Americans I talk to prefer the hate to be out in the open, whereas most whites seem to want it swept under the rug. My own position, maybe informed by my Jewishness, is that I also prefer Nazis to be out and proud. Not so I know who they are(which sounds vaguely sinister, I don’t want to hurt these people), but so I know how many there are and how much sympathy there is for them. I know a lot more people sympathize with them than feel safe admitting it. But why shouldn’t they feel safe? Does making them feel unsafe make them less likely to sympathize?

So I propose for debate that the correct way to confront hate is to not change our tactics too much from when we were originally fighting it. Peaceful counterprotests, work through the system, engage those who disagree in good faith, and condemn hatred, while not seeking extraordinary punishment simply for having those beliefs and expressing them. Of course, those of us who aren’t consciously racist are the vast majority so in some ways we should use our majority power to try to change behavior. But I don’t think we should cross the line into intimidation, which was their tactic when they were in the majority.

I think you hit on the reasons the tactics change in your own post. Take the battle for the rights of gay and transgender people. As you note, some people come from a position of hate and others still just have misconceptions. When it comes to the transgendered, there are still a lot of people who have misconceptions. When it comes to racism, the folks who were racist due to misconceptions have mostly disappeared, i.e. they are no longer racist since their misconceptions have been adequately addressed over the years as more and more people are likely to personally know a racial minority and black people have attained positions all the way up to POTUS. What’s left are the people who are racist due to hatred, and the tactics that work on someone who is racist due to hatred are not going to work the same way they did on someone who was racist due to misconceptions. I don’t know what the answer is, but I recognize they are two fundamentally different problems.

[adaher]

Good point. I recall Eric Holder’s statement on our national dialogue on race, saying that we were “cowards”. Well yeah, that’s what we’ve been taught to be! Talking about race is very dangerous even if you mean well.

[GIGObuster]

@adaher

I acknowledge that flaw, did so a little in my OP. I’m not sure what the happy medium is between reasoned debate and actively combatting hate, but I do know it’s not forcing it into the shadows. I think people who say this really should be out in the open have a point.

I think you are missing that the Nazis and confederate followers coming into the open was the fulfillment of that, they are not really going in to the shadows now, but are being exposed to harsh light, thanks to the same social media they think they ruled.

The issue IMHO is precisely what me and many others from the liberal side pointed out many times in the past. The right needs to do a lot of cleanup, part of that does mean to tell friends and relatives that are falling for those extremes to pull out, to let them know where those ideologies lead to. To let them know that indeed most Americans do not believe in those ideologies and it was a mistake to not tell cousin Bob that he was not going to go too far by following those deplorables.

[Procrustus]

@adaher

Also, I’m not really addressing the left, since the left is what the left is. They want to destroy their enemies.

Seriously?

[adaher]

Looks like the ACLU sees things my way:

ACLU takes heat for its free-speech defense | CNN Politics

n a statement posted Tuesday night, ACLU executive director Anthony Romero insisted hateful, bigoted speech must be aired.
“Racism and bigotry will not be eradicated if we merely force them underground,” Romero wrote. “Equality and justice will only be achieved if society looks such bigotry squarely in the eyes and renounces it.”

[iiandyiiii]

Good OP, by the way.

My thoughts:

There are opinions that are beyond the pale in society – pro-NAMBLA arguments are made pretty much never, in public and non-anonymously, and in the rare occasions they are, the advocate is inevitable metaphorically “crushed” by popular disgust and anger.

This is less because of some organized campaign to crush pro-NAMBLA attitudes and more because most people really are totally disgusted and horrified by those ideas. Would it be better if everyone decided to step back and make calm, reasoned debates with these arguments such that the advocates felt comfortable being “out in the open”? I’m not sure if it would. Allowing such space might increase the chances of “non-practicing” pedophiles (i.e. those with these desires but who are able to keep from acting on them) feeling enough comfort to let down their guard and act on desires which are suddenly less taboo in society. Better, perhaps, to keep it so far beyond the pale that everyone understands that to act on these desires means a very high chance of lifelong incarceration and forever being shunned by friends and family.

I think the same societal reprobation is true of open white supremacism, though to a lesser degree – if society comes down on open white supremacists “like a ton of bricks”, it’s more because so many people really are disgusted and angered by those arguments and express their anger openly, honestly, and harshly, rather than anything organized. Society still allows a little more room for them than for NAMBLA, though.

But the same is not really true of homophobia, and less straight-forward forms of racism, and transphobia – many politicians are elected by spouting such hateful rhetoric, and many media figures make small fortunes peddling these ideas. Is it really better to remove harsh criticism, mockery, and disdain from the “rhetorical quiver” from which we draw to fight them?

I’m not saying that harsh criticism and related tactics should be the only ones used against hateful ideas – but I’m saying that they are tools that can be useful. Mockery can be useful. “shame shame SHAME on you!” can be useful. Even angrily shouting at them can be useful. All of these rhetorical tools can be useful in different circumstances, and while some of them can also be counterproductive, such that I wish every advocate for tolerance had great skills in modulating their rhetoric perfectly based on who they’re speaking to, I’d rather we have all of these tools then abandon some of them.

I don’t think this conflicts with the ACLU’s call.

[adaher]

@iiandyiiii

Good OP, by the way.

My thoughts:

There are opinions that are beyond the pale in society – pro-NAMBLA arguments are made pretty much never, in public and non-anonymously, and in the rare occasions they are, the advocate is inevitable metaphorically “crushed” by popular disgust and anger.

This is less because of some organized campaign to crush pro-NAMBLA attitudes and more because most people really are totally disgusted and horrified by those ideas. Would it be better if everyone decided to step back and make calm, reasoned debates with these arguments such that the advocates felt comfortable being “out in the open”? I’m not sure if it would. Allowing such space might increase the chances of “non-practicing” pedophiles (i.e. those with these desires but who are able to keep from acting on them) feeling enough comfort to let down their guard and act on desires which are suddenly less taboo in society. Better, perhaps, to keep it so far beyond the pale that everyone understands that to act on these desires means a very high chance of lifelong incarceration and forever being shunned by friends and family.

I think the same societal reprobation is true of open white supremacism, though to a lesser degree – if society comes down on open white supremacists “like a ton of bricks”, it’s more because so many people really are disgusted and angered by those arguments and express their anger openly, honestly, and harshly, rather than anything organized. Society still allows a little more room for them than for NAMBLA, though.

But the same is not really true of homophobia, and less straight-forward forms of racism, and transphobia – many politicians are elected by spouting such hateful rhetoric, and many media figures make small fortunes peddling these ideas. Is it really better to remove harsh criticism, mockery, and disdain from the “rhetorical quiver” from which we draw to fight them?

I’m not saying that harsh criticism and related tactics should be the only ones used against hateful ideas – but I’m saying that they are tools that can be useful. Mockery can be useful. “shame shame SHAME on you!” can be useful. Even angrily shouting at them can be useful. All of these rhetorical tools can be useful in different circumstances, and while some of them can also be counterproductive, such that I wish every advocate for tolerance had great skills in modulating their rhetoric perfectly based on who they’re speaking to, I’d rather we have all of these tools then abandon some of them.

I don’t think this conflicts with the ACLU’s call.

I agree with most of that. As we’ve discussed before, where I think it goes beyond the pale is when people are attacked economically in ways that don’t really have much to do with the nexus of their job and their beliefs. I don’t feel too bad for what’s going on with the Charlottesville protesters who have been outed, because racist protests have happened before and people didn’t get outed. The “outing” campaign seems to have more to do with the fact that the methods used in the protest went beyond the pale, rather than an attack solely on their viewpoint.

But situations like Mozilla’s CEO, boycotts against Chik-Fil-A, the backlash against the Dixie Chicks, and the Beatles before them(although they recovered quickly from that, being the freakin’ Beatles and not merely the Dixie Chicks), James Damore. This idea that if someone expresses views you find offensive, that not only should they lose their job or business, but should probably not have opportunities in the future either, smacks of extrajudicial punishment.

The other, bigger problem is how it chills speech, which I believe is the intent. Recently, on Facebook people have been sharing a “Pyramid of White Supremacism”, that includes such things as “support for Columbus Day”, “colorblindness”, and even “self-appointed white ally”, which I’m not sure what kind of behavior that’s supposed to deter. Aren’t all whites who oppose racism “self-appointed”? Anyway, this seems like an attempt to make us feel unsafe to express views on certain issues.

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

I agree with most of that. As we’ve discussed before, where I think it goes beyond the pale is when people are attacked economically in ways that don’t really have much to do with the nexus of their job and their beliefs. I don’t feel too bad for what’s going on with the Charlottesville protesters who have been outed, because racist protests have happened before and people didn’t get outed. The “outing” campaign seems to have more to do with the fact that the methods used in the protest went beyond the pale, rather than an attack solely on their viewpoint.

But situations like Mozilla’s CEO, boycotts against Chik-Fil-A, the backlash against the Dixie Chicks, and the Beatles before them(although they recovered quickly from that, being the freakin’ Beatles and not merely the Dixie Chicks), James Damore. This idea that if someone expresses views you find offensive, that not only should they lose their job or business, but should probably not have opportunities in the future either, smacks of extrajudicial punishment.

But I think those are just examples of sort of free and disorganized disapproval, as well as real business interests. No business wants to be enmired in a public controversy – and thus they’re likely to back off from such ideas, which might include firing a manager who spouted off about them (or even publicly donated money). If Mozilla and Chick-Fil-A (I’m not even sure about the second – did anyone at Chick-Fil-A get fired?) thought that they would lose more business by firing their CEO than by keeping him, then they would have kept him. They’re responding to their understanding of their customer base, not merely giving into the demands of extremists. I would expect the same is true of Damore and Google, though I’m not sure about that… I suspect this guy has alonger history within the company, and they saw this as an opportunity to get rid of him, but that’s half a guess. Musical acts and entertainers of course are going to lose some fans when they take a public stance – lots of people don’t want to come listen to a musician if they think they’re on the wrong side of an important moral issue.

The other, bigger problem is how it chills speech, which I believe is the intent. Recently, on Facebook people have been sharing a “Pyramid of White Supremacism”, that includes such things as “support for Columbus Day”, “colorblindness”, and even “self-appointed white ally”, which I’m not sure what kind of behavior that’s supposed to deter. Aren’t all whites who oppose racism “self-appointed”? Anyway, this seems like an attempt to make us feel unsafe to express views on certain issues.

That just sounds like the kind of silliness that goes around on social media all the time. From the way you describe it, it’s not even that bad IMO, and maybe even could inspire some reasonable discussion. For instance, here’s how I might respond to it: “I strive to be an ally against hate and intolerance, and I hope my friends and family from all backgrounds will too, as well as calling me out and helping me learn when I get something wrong”. Whether you consider yourself “self-appointed” or not (personally all I’ll say is that this is what I strive for – I strive to not be racist, I strive to oppose hatred, I strive to be an ally…), that someone else might be annoyed or critical of the concept of “self-appointment” isn’t that big of a deal, IMO.

[adaher]

@iiandyiiii

But I think those are just examples of sort of free and disorganized disapproval, as well as real business interests. No business wants to be enmired in a public controversy – and thus they’re likely to back off from such ideas, which might include firing a manager who spouted off about them (or even publicly donated money). If Mozilla and Chick-Fil-A (I’m not even sure about the second – did anyone at Chick-Fil-A get fired?) thought that they would lose more business by firing their CEO than by keeping him, then they would have kept him. They’re responding to their understanding of their customer base, not merely giving into the demands of extremists. I would expect the same is true of Damore and Google, though I’m not sure about that… I suspect this guy has alonger history within the company, and they saw this as an opportunity to get rid of him, but that’s half a guess. Musical acts and entertainers of course are going to lose some fans when they take a public stance – lots of people don’t want to come listen to a musician if they think they’re on the wrong side of an important moral issue.

People generally don’t get fired for outside of work viewpoint expression unless a controversy starts, and then usually followed by demands for firing people. Chik-Fil-A was a case where the company CEO had a viewpoint, and people are certainly free to decide they won’t patronize a company with views they don’t like, but organized boycotts IMO are an intimidation tactic. The right and the left do this, and no one thinks its okay when someone gets hurt in a substantial way just for expressing an opinion if they agree with that opinion. Damore, also, he got fired because it was a public controversy. The Dixie Chicks were also the victim of organized boycotts, not just fan preference. Even among their customer base, GWB was not so popular that criticizing him was going to result in the destruction of their career. It was the organized campaign by some on the right to blow up their offense into more than it was.

That just sounds like the kind of silliness that goes around on social media all the time. From the way you describe it, it’s not even that bad IMO, and maybe even could inspire some reasonable discussion. For instance, here’s how I might respond to it: “I strive to be an ally against hate and intolerance, and I hope my friends and family from all backgrounds will too, as well as calling me out and helping me learn when I get something wrong”. Whether you consider yourself “self-appointed” or not (personally all I’ll say is that this is what I strive for – I strive to not be racist, I strive to oppose hatred, I strive to be an ally…), that someone else might be annoyed or critical of the concept of “self-appointment” isn’t that big of a deal, IMO.

It probably is just silliness, but due to the highly charged nature of race issues, this kind of thing can have a negative effect. And it’s not as if it’s the only example. The idea that we’re supposed to be race conscious and that expressions of colorblindness or “We are all one human race” seem to be lumped in with “All Lives Matter” as expressions of cluelessness at best, racism denial at worst. And there’s a worthy discussion to be had about that, I agree, but I don’t think it’s actually possible to safely have it except where you can speak anonymously.

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

People generally don’t get fired for outside of work viewpoint expression unless a controversy starts, and then usually followed by demands for firing people. Chik-Fil-A was a case where the company CEO had a viewpoint, and people are certainly free to decide they won’t patronize a company with views they don’t like, but organized boycotts IMO are an intimidation tactic. The right and the left do this, and no one thinks its okay when someone gets hurt in a substantial way just for expressing an opinion if they agree with that opinion. Damore, also, he got fired because it was a public controversy. The Dixie Chicks were also the victim of organized boycotts, not just fan preference. Even among their customer base, GWB was not so popular that criticizing him was going to result in the destruction of their career. It was the organized campaign by some on the right to blow up their offense into more than it was.

Organized boycotts are a tactic, and sometimes they work for great good – (the most obvious one that comes to mind is the Montgomery Bus Boycott – I’m sure you’d agree with me that that was a reasonable use of the tactic). Maybe they aren’t reasonable in certain cases, but that’s true with every tactic – every tactic can be used for good or ill.

More common are disorganized boycotts – if a company gets a reputation as using slave labor overseas, or willy-nilly harming the environment, or some other public moral harm, then many customers are just going to go elsewhere. That’s also fine, and it’s not even really a tactic – just part of PR for businesses.

I think it’s fine to say “a boycott isn’t appropriate in this circumstance for reasons A, B, and C”, but it’s wrong to dismiss boycotts as always inappropriate.

It probably is just silliness, but due to the highly charged nature of race issues, this kind of thing can have a negative effect. And it’s not as if it’s the only example. The idea that we’re supposed to be race conscious and that expressions of colorblindness or “We are all one human race” seem to be lumped in with “All Lives Matter” as expressions of cluelessness at best, racism denial at worst. And there’s a worthy discussion to be had about that, I agree, but I don’t think it’s actually possible to safely have it except where you can speak anonymously.

I think it’s possible to safely discuss these things, it just takes some care. Some assholes might shit on you for disagreeing, but that’s just assholes. If you frame your argument humbly (as in making it clear you don’t understanding something and want to learn) and reasonably, then in most cases you’ll get good responses, IMO.

Maybe it’s easy to slip up and then you get shit on. But even that shouldn’t be such a big deal. Maybe you didn’t frame your argument well, or you said something unkind or thoughtless inadvertently. That’s also an opportunity to learn – and you can come back and say “thanks for telling about this thing – I hadn’t thought of that, and you’re right that I should, and going forward I’ll keep that in mind when I think about these issues”.

[adaher]

[quote=“iiandyiiii, post:16, topic:793847”]

Organized boycotts are a tactic, and sometimes they work for great good – (the most obvious one that comes to mind is the Montgomery Bus Boycott – I’m sure you’d agree with me that that was a reasonable use of the tactic). Maybe they aren’t reasonable in certain cases, but that’s true with every tactic – every tactic can be used for good or ill.
[/QUOTE[

The Montgomery Bus Boycott was an effort to change a discriminatory policy, not to get any particular person fired.

I think it’s possible to safely discuss these things, it just takes some care. Some assholes might shit on you for disagreeing, but that’s just assholes. If you frame your argument humbly (as in making it clear you don’t understanding something and want to learn) and reasonably, then in most cases you’ll get good responses, IMO.

Maybe it’s easy to slip up and then you get shit on. But even that shouldn’t be such a big deal. Maybe you didn’t frame your argument well, or you said something unkind or thoughtless inadvertently. That’s also an opportunity to learn – and you can come back and say “thanks for telling about this thing – I hadn’t thought of that, and you’re right that I should, and going forward I’ll keep that in mind when I think about these issues”.

As you probably know by now, I don’t fear getting shit on. If you speak out on issues, you should expect people to speak out in turn. it just shouldn’t go beyond that.

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

The Montgomery Bus Boycott was an effort to change a discriminatory policy, not to get any particular person fired.

This doesn’t change my position. Sometimes people should be fired. Sometimes they shouldn’t be.

[adaher]

I agree. If their viewpoints relate to their job responsibilities, then it’s appropriate.

In regards to this discussion, Matt Yglesias tweeted this:

https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/898182087500599296

People who support Confederate statues are mistaken, but they are a majority and they’re going to have to be persuaded not just yelled at.

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

I agree. If their viewpoints relate to their job responsibilities, then it’s appropriate.

Lots of people will disagree on what “relates to their job responsibilities” – such responsibilites can sometimes reasonable extend to “treat people with tolerance and kindness”.

In regards to this discussion, Matt Yglesias tweeted this:

x.com

I’m sure this is true, and I support a wide variety of tactics for this issue. Some people will be swayed by calm and gentle discussion, and some will need more of an assertive style, etc. All tactics can work and fail to work with different individuals.