US elections 2016 - "Go ahead, throw your vote away"

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

10 minutes ago, aceluby said:

The good ole intolerance to other people's racial intolerance means you're just as bad argument. It never gets old.

"I know you are, but what am I?"

I don't know if that is directed toward me, but that's not what I'm saying.  I'm wondering what methodolgies are proper in dealing with other's intolerance?

[aceluby]

10 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I don't know if that is directed toward me, but that's not what I'm saying.  I'm wondering what methodolgies are proper in dealing with other's intolerance?

It's not always about you Scot ;P. 

It was actually in response to Altherions long winded post about how calling bigots out as morally repugnant actually makes you a bigot.

It used to be that social shame worked, but now those tactics don't as they will just climb into their social media echo chamber where everyone is bigoted like them and telling them their views are ok and should have representation. I don't have an answer, but the way places like Facebook tailor what you see and hear to your bias is definitely making this a problem

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

4 minutes ago, aceluby said:

It's not always about you Scot ;P. 

It was actually in response to Altherions long winded post about how calling bigots out as morally repugnant actually makes you a bigot.

It used to be that social shame worked, but now those tactics don't as they will just climb into their social media echo chamber where everyone is bigoted like them and telling them their views are ok and should have representation. I don't have an answer, but the way places like Facebook tailor what you see and hear to your bias is definitely making this a problem

Yeah, the inefficacy of social shaming to open bold bigoty is what I find so troubling.  Where can we go after that?

[Tijgy]

 

18 minutes ago, aceluby said:

It used to be that social shame worked, but now those tactics don't as they will just climb into their social media echo chamber where everyone is bigoted like them and telling them their views are ok and should have representation. I don't have an answer, but the way places like Facebook tailor what you see and hear to your bias is definitely making this a problem

And this is actually the reason why freedom of expression of opinion matters a lot. If you socially shame people directly by calling those people a racist, they indeed go to a place where they can express their opinions freely and where they feel safe.

If you would allow them to speak, engage in debate, not call them deplorable and irredeemable and show rationally why they are wrong, you would actually ensure they see they are wrong and chance their opinions. 

IMO you should always have respect for people and their right to express their opinion so long it does not directly advocate harm against other people. You should however condemn the content of their opinions, when those opinions are racist, ...

[DanteGabriel]

So... Bigots need safe spaces and trigger warnings too?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

8 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

So... Bigots need safe spaces and trigger warnings too?

Whether they "need" them or not. I think they are creating "safe spaces" for themselves.  I think that is why they need to be engaged.  They need to be rationally show to be irrational.

[DanteGabriel]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Whether they "need" them or not. I think they are creating "safe spaces" for themselves.  I think that is why they need to be engaged.  They need to be rationally show to be irrational.

This, despite the well worn data about how being confronted with evidence usually just makes people double down on irrational beliefs? This sounds like so much handwaving, like "If only Obama had just tried harder to work with Congressional Republicans!"

[The Anti-Targ]

13 minutes ago, Tijgy said:

 

And this is actually the reason why freedom of expression of opinion matters a lot. If you socially shame people directly by calling those people a racist, they indeed go to a place where they can express their opinions freely and where they feel safe.

If you would allow them to speak, engage in debate, not call them deplorable and irredeemable and show rationally why they are wrong, you would actually ensure they see they are wrong and chance their opinions. 

IMO you should always have respect for people and their right to express their opinion so long it does not directly advocate harm against other people. You should however condemn the content of their opinions, when those opinions are racist, ...

You assume they are amenable to rational argument, which most are not.

 

5 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Whether they "need" them or not. I think they are creating "safe spaces" for themselves.  I think that is why they need to be engaged.  They need to be rationally show to be irrational.

Can you show an irrational person that they are being irrational?

[Boris the Blade]

6 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Whether they "need" them or not. I think they are creating "safe spaces" for themselves.  I think that is why they need to be engaged.  They need to be rationally show to be irrational.

Because people haven't been trying to show that and they haven't shown themselves to not care and get worse?

2 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

This, despite the well worn data about how being confronted with evidence usually just makes people double down on irrational beliefs? This sounds like so much handwaving, like "If only Obama had just tried harder to work with Congressional Republicans!"

Yup!

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Here is why Trump will lose Florida: 

http://www.politico.com/states/florida/story/2016/09/feds-approve-more-foreign-workers-for-trump-branded-resort-105519

[Tijgy]

9 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Whether they "need" them or not. I think they are creating "safe spaces" for themselves.  I think that is why they need to be engaged.  They need to be rationally show to be irrational.

I agree. 

8 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

You assume they are amenable to rational argument, which most are not.

Why would they not? This is again an argument which attacks the character of those people. You should never just shut the whole debate down by assuming directly you cannot engage with them. 

Rational argument gives you the opportunity to test your own argumentation, to show their argumentation is false, ... 

And this is better than driving them away in their safe spaces where they argue only with people of the same opinion and were they cannot test their opinions to the opinions of other people. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Here's a new swing state ad from the Clinton Campaign. It's every bit as powerful as the one with little kids watching Trump's comments:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/clinton-ad-mirrors_us_57e494f9e4b08d73b83098cd

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

40 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

You assume they are amenable to rational argument, which most are not.

 

Can you show an irrational person that they are being irrational?

Bigoted actions in hiring or providing services are already illegal civily or criminally.

How else can they be convinced of their irrationality?  What other steps can a civil society attempt to get people to set aside bigoted beliefs?

[Jo498]

35 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Can you show an irrational person that they are being irrational?

If they obviously are irrational, this should not be all that hard. But you are confusing to some extent "rationality" with "values of my tribe". Even in a case like racism that is now broadly accepted as morally wrong it may be an open question if it might not be rational in some contexts (am I a racist if I avoid certain streets/hoods at night?).

But the main problem is that you tend to tar with an extremly broad brush. Many of the 100 million or so will not be obvious or open racists but disagree with progressives in fields where the possibility of rational disagreement should be admitted. E.g in the linked WP article the researchers apparently found that whites tend to think of social benefits as zero sum games. (They think they lose their "white privilege" because the "lazy minorities" get a free pass.) This may be wrong in general but there are obviously cases where one is really dealing with zero sum games, e.g. affirmative action in college admissions. There are only so many spots and if minority person gets in on affirmative action, white guy will not get in. Is this not something one can rationally disagree about?

Or if one does not think that it is obvious one should be in risk of losing a small business and one's livelihood because refusing some service (e.g. the "gay wedding cake") for religious reasons but that there are prima facie equally valid rights at stake and that there should be a rational discussion about it, one will get painted as hater and racist. Everyone under 40 must remember that things like gay marriage were as fringe as granting muslims 4 wives only 20-25 years ago. So one held a fairly mainstream position (e.g. reservations about gay marriage) and 10 years later one wakes up and has suddenly changed into a hateful bigot who might as well join the Klan because he could hardly be more despised.

[Boris the Blade]

16 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Bigoted actions in hiring or providing services are already illegal civily or criminally.

How else can they be convinced of their irrationality?  What other steps can a civil society attempt to get people to set aside bigoted beliefs?

One big interracial gang bang.

[TrackerNeil]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Whether they "need" them or not. I think they are creating "safe spaces" for themselves.  I think that is why they need to be engaged.  They need to be rationally show to be irrational.

I wish I still believed that reason changes minds.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

I wish I still believed that reason changes minds.

What other means can be used?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

18 minutes ago, Harakiri said:

One big interracial gang bang.

Pardon?  What do you mean by "gang bang" the lewd or violent interpretation?

[maarsen]

10 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

What other means can be used?

Leading by example,  for example. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, maarsen said:

Leading by example,  for example. 

I do try.  Is it effective?