If you skip the introduction and don’t watch the Q&A afterwards, the presentation is just under an hour. A very good watch, IMO. Interested in what people think.
If you skip the introduction and don’t watch the Q&A afterwards, the presentation is just under an hour. A very good watch, IMO. Interested in what people think.
No, you’re not stating facts, buddy, you’re expressing opinions. Whenever you call someone a bigot, you’re expressing an opinion, because labeling someone a bigot is always a value judgment. Someone, somewhere will always disagree with you. You and I would probably agree most of the time in our value judgments of who are/aren’t bigots, actually–but that’s not the issue here. The issue here is that I’m trying to point out that most of the time, there’s more nuance to be had in dealing with people whose opinions differ from ours, and thus more to be gained from conversing with them and treating them with a modicum of respect, which is what Jonathan Haidt’s point is. You and others in this thread are getting butthurt over the idea that those you regard as bigots might–just might–have some legitimacy to their views, regardless of whether you agree with them or not. But dismissing other people’s perspectives completely and labeling them “bigots” simply because you disagree with them is the essence of bigotry.
I have treated real bigots, real racists, real monsters. What I’m trying to tell you is these people are still human, and in that fact lies the revelation that no matter what our opinions of them are, there’s something to be learned about them and why they see the world the way they do. Something of real value, which is lost when you simply label them a “bigot” and shut off your capacity for empathy.
You’re attributing all kinds of words and intent to what I’m saying. I’m saying basic, simple things. You are reading more into it than what I’m saying. I never said these people are irredeemable, however I’m not going to mince words regarding bigots, racists and monsters just because they could one day change their position.
My position is that you can’t be tolerant with hate, it just encourages them. You seem very angry.
LOL, I’m not angry, dude, and I don’t know what I’ve said thus far that suggests that to you. I’m incredulous. I don’t see any value in what you’re saying. You claim to be saying “basic, simple things” about other people, but there’s literally nothing basic or simple about human beings. I’m not saying you should try to empathize with Nick Fuentes because he might be redeemable (I don’t think he is, quite frankly); I’m saying that learning how he became the bigot he is will inform you about something valuable, something real in his opinions that–while he might take it too far–is a valid fucking point. Xenophobes who don’t tolerate any form of immigration are almost always motivated to that extreme point of view by an experience that reflects a real, respectable perspective, such as the fact that allowing people with customs and values radically different from ours into our living spaces will inevitably lead to strife and conflict. What we do in response to that or whether we allow it in the first place is a worthy debate to have, but just labeling them “racists” and refusing to consider their perspectives is an act of bigotry itself.
I don’t think people should have to subject themselves to that sort toxic interaction just because there may be an actual fucking point somewhere in their hate filled rambling.
I do, however think we should talk about real issues that effect us all, like the cross cultural friction that often comes about due to immigration. We can raise these issues without giving voice to racists.
In the end, I believe the solution will be the acceptance of other’s ways, going both directions (existing and migrant).
That’s very sweet, but I’m willing to bet you couldn’t tell the difference between a full-on Nick Fuentes fanatic and someone who simply votes Republican because they empathize with Nick Fuentes’ point. The fact that you claimed to be saying something “basic and simple” about people you label bigots tells me that. The fact that you don’t think people should have to “subject themselves to that sort [of] toxic interaction” when we’re simply talking about honest dialogue demonstrates a level of pessimism about human interaction so great that I could easily sympathize with people who label you toxic. If you’re trying to advocate for discussion of complex issues like immigration, but refuse to negotiate with people who you label “bigoted,” simply because they make racist arguments, you will inevitably fail. What I’m trying to get across to you is that those you label “the enemy” are in fact people with valuable perspectives, but I’m not saying those people should be catered to, which I think is what you’re thinking I’m saying. One can empathize with a monster without becoming said monster themselves, but in order to do so, you have to see past the monster and see the damaged human being inside and recognize that said human being has a valid, reasonable motivation for becoming said monster. But this notion that people shouldn’t have to subject themselves to the “toxic” interaction of dealing with monsters? Welcome to fucking reality, my friend. It’s not pretty. And if you think people shouldn’t have to deal with the ugly parts of existence, you might as well check out from reality itself, yourself. Part of Haidt’s point is that dealing with these objectionable aspects of reality is what cultivates not just resilience in us, but complex character; and that is inherently valuable and good for not just society, but you as a person.
You keep putting words in my mouth. I never said “enemy”, that’s all you. I didn’t say the world is pretty, fair or right. I said slavers are bigots, and you got all upset. I don’t think you disagree with me at all.
Seriously, don’t put words in my mouth, it’s rude. Notice how I have not made assumptions about your position, and am merely stating my view. You keep ASSUMING that my words mean something other than what I’m saying. Stop it. Address the actual words I’m using, bigots are bigots even if they have a point. You said “monster”, which is a judgement where as “bigot” is a way of identifying people who hold a prejudice world-view which makes them and their “group” superior to another. That’s it. No other words.
You’re getting hung up on my specific words and failing to respond to my points. Bigots are not “bigots,” “that’s it. no other words.” LOL. Spoken like a true bigot. You’re guilty of the exact same thing you’re railing against, and I’m not debating your definition of the word “bigot” here, simply pointing out you’re a hypocrite by your own definition.
But this conversation has clearly reached the limit of its utility, at least for me. Ta-ta.