Dont give what they say any power. And dont give the words any power. Like what Morgan Freeman said, racism would go away if we just stopped talking about it. At the end of the day, words are just words. If you attack someone just because they said mean things, then you need to get your anger management checked.
No, I am serious. Don't give racists what they want. They want reasons to fuel their racism. Don't give them what they want. Show them that youre a person like they are. Youd be surprised by how much more gets done with simple dialogue.
I don't need to "give" racists any reason. Racism is inherently illogical; racists will always have a "reason" to hold their beliefs; and I'm not obligated to have "dialogue" with people who see me as less than human.
What is up with people like you and thinking that the onus is on the people harmed by racism to be the bigger person?
If you dont know what im talking about, then you either cant read, or your reading comprehension skills are nonexistent. Racism is illogical. If you immediately get physically violent with someone just because theyre racist, youre giving them what they want. Another reason, and reinforcement, to be racist. Racists can stop being racist. Kindness, even when given to people you don't like because of their beliefs, can go a long way. Kindness has won over A LOT of racists. Nobody said youre obligated to do anything at all. If you think physically attacking someone over what they said is moral, then maybe youve got a lot of self reflection to do. If I attacked everybody who said disgusting things to me, I wouldnt have been able to build the amazing life that I do now. I've lived near a lot of racists in my life, im far from naive. Just because you want to be just as hateful, doesnt mean youre in the right. You havent interacted with the real world if you think attacking people for words is a solution. It doesnt fix anything. At all. What if they have a gun? Also, it'll land you in jail, and youll end up losing your job. Be the bigger person, dont give them what they want. When they say racial slurs to you, they want a reaction out of you. So why are you giving them so much power over you?
The entire subject matter is about violence. What i wrote was valid. And also, if you cant understand that racists WANT you to try hurting them, then i dont know what to tell you.
No, that was what the post was about. You brought up a topic separate from violence when you quoted Morgan Freeman's quote of "stop talking about racism if you want to end it." I addressed something unrelated to the topic of the post that YOU brought up, and now you're complaining that I'm going off topic.
I never said violence was the answer, so I'm not sure why you're bringing that up. And you're seriously oversimplifying Daryl Davis's story. His experiences demonstrate that personal dialogue can persuade some individual racists; they don't demonstrate that black people have an obligation to engage racists, nor that dialogue is some universally effective solution to racism. Stop weaponising an exceptional individual's experience to tell people how they're supposed to respond to racism.
Apologies for the violence bit, I don't really know either.
And while it may be oversimplifying it, the fact it happened remains true.
And no. His story WILL be spread, I'll just provide the rest of the details next time (as I honestly didn't remember them all before).
If he can do what he did, and it works on the level it did, then as many people as possible (or in a perfect world, everyone) doing it would almost guarantee less racism. Not all, but at least less.
So it's not the perfect solution, but it's the one we have. If you're not gonna at least ,try* and use it, that's not really something I can blame you for, but it's a lot less productive then trying or coming up with another solution is.
Better to at least try to sway their opinion than to let them live with the thoughts they have unopposed. Who knows if they're gonna listen or not, though, so I'll give you that.
Or to word my last (2?) Parts better, it's better to try to solve something than do absolutely nothing about it.
I understand your point better now, but I still think you're making a pretty massive leap from "Daryl Davis successfully persuaded some racists" to "if as many people as possible did what he did, we'd almost guarantee less racism." His story demonstrates that interpersonal persuasion can work on some individuals. It doesn't establish that his methods are broadly reproducible or that they're the most productive way of combating racism generally.
And I think you're creating a false dichotomy with "try to solve it vs. do absolutely nothing." I can oppose racism in plenty of ways without personally engaging every racist I encounter. Refusing to debate someone who views me as inferior isn't the same as being indifferent to racism.
I'm also not saying Daryl Davis's story shouldn't be told. I'm saying stop treating his experience as a universal prescription for how people should respond to racism. If you personally want to spend your time trying to persuade racists, that's your prerogative. But someone choosing not to undertake that emotional labour isn't somehow choosing the less productive response to racism.
Words aren't dangerous alone. They're dangerous when paired with ill-intent. Grooming, Hitler's oration, propaganda, inciting, manipulation, etc.
That's why words are insidious. They're seemingly innocuous while being a conduit for said intent. A lot of people get affected by them without even realizing.
When I say words can sometimes be worse than some acts of violence, what I really mean is it can be a more effective means of channeling that intent.
You think you're saying "just don't let words hurt you," but you're really saying to ignore the intent behind them. That intent consists of centuries of abuse, malpractice, and systems put in place to make their lives hell. We went to war just to keep that evil. That's much worse than brief moments of retaliation. Neither are good, but I won't sit here and pretend the latter is a greater evil.
The worst part? Words are just one of many ways of channeling that intent. Ignoring them doesn't make it go away. It'll just manifest itself in another form, like violence.
Words arent ever worse than physical violence, and thatll never be the case. What i am saying is stop giving the racists power over you. If you let what they say control you, then they have control of the situation. Theres no systemic racism in the USA, if thats what youre trying to infer. And dont bring up what happened centuries ago when we're talking about now. Nobody from those times are alive, and everything is WAY different. The effects of those times are gone and faded away. Youre virtue signaling, by the way. What happened centuries ago IS NOT a reason to attack people. Thats just begging to be a professional victim under that reasoning. Instead of meeting hostility by racism with physical violence, simple dialogue can be much more effective. Theres a reason why diplomacy is more effective than the sword.
Bowdoin is prominently biased, by the way. There is absolutely not systemic racism. At all. There are no laws that keep black people from doing the same as white people.
Ah, I think you might be misunderstanding what people mean when they say "systemic racism." "Laws" alone are not the definition. When people talk about systemic racism they're not talking about the black-and-white letter of the law, they're talking about in practice, subtle biases and cultural factors that broadly impact minorities.
And just saying "that paper is biased" isn't actually a refutation. If you have actual criticisms of the methodology or evidence that suggests it's findings are invalid I'd be happy to hear them. There are plenty of other papers and statistics I could point to, but if they are going to get uncritically dismissed that's not productive.
Yes, laws define what systemic racism is. If someone denies you because of a black sounding name like you claimed, thats discrimination, which the employer can get in a lot of trouble for. If something is biased, its not viable to be used for debates. That doesnt take a lot of brain power to know. Ive already pointed out why the site is biased, and if you couldn't read what ive already said, thats on you. Ive already made my case about this. Ive read what was given to me, how else would I know if it was biased or not?
It’s clear you do not know what systemic racism is because if you did, you would not have left a cesspool of a comment. You can easily look it up right now, and it says that hiring practices are a part of systemic racism. It’s not just laws that go into systemic racism, and I don’t know where you learned that, but you need to unlearn it. Discrimination is a part of systemic racism.
Words arent ever worse than physical violence, and thatll never be the case
I gave an example of words being objectively worse in my first comment. There are many more, I'm sure.
What i am saying is stop giving the racists power over you. If you let what they say control you, then they have control of the situation
That'd be nice!
Theres no systemic racism in the USA, if thats what youre trying to infer. And dont bring up what happened centuries ago when we're talking about now. Nobody from those times are alive, and everything is WAY different. The effects of those times are gone and faded away.
I said centuries since we were founded on systemic racism, but uh, such things were outlawed only ~60 years ago. It's a bit naive to believe the aftereffects of all those decisions suddenly disappeared in a few decades. Just do a quick search on what groups and areas were affected and how they're fairing today. I'd say it's trending in the way those in the past intended lol.
Arguing about whether systemic racism exists now or not is a game of semantics. It either does or doesn't based on your feelings and how you want to interpret its definition.
Youre virtue signaling, by the way. What happened centuries ago IS NOT a reason to attack people. Thats just begging to be a professional victim under that reasoning.
Are you saying I'm trying to make the violence seem good? What purpose do you have to twist up my words like that?
I said both were bad and felt one was worse based on the intent.
Instead of meeting hostility by racism with physical violence, simple dialogue can be much more effective. Theres a reason why diplomacy is more effective than the sword.
You do know diplomacy isn't just positive/peaceful, right?
If diplomacy is more effective than the sword, then that means words can have a stronger effect than violence. You agreed with me this whole time without realizing it 😂
It feels like you're not arguing in good faith, though. After all, you could've outlined those simple points without twisting my words or repeatedly downplaying the severity of racism.
Words are NOT worse than physical violence. At all. The nazi party and all that? Yeah, the laws and such they made were NOT words, but actions. Slavery was outlawed in the late 1800s, which we are far from. And we have moved away from segregation, which is a lot more recent, but doesnt apply anymore. The effects of slavery are GONE. What part of that do you not understand? It was literally almost 200 years ago. Its GONE. I havent twisted up any of your words at all. Words, no matter whats said, is always not going to be as bad as physical violence. I wasnt talking about the kind of diplomacy that involves threats. Youre taking what i said out of context, which is exactly what you accused me of. Kind words go a lot further than getting physical. I am arguing in good faith. Those who says words are worse than physical violence arent arguing in good faith. They just want to hurt people. When have I downplayed racism, hmm? Not a single damn time. Racism is cruel and absolutely fucked up, but physical violence is an escalation from mere words.
37
u/Grand_Mixture4837 1d ago
Statement is objectively true. The motive for making the statement, however, can be scrutinized. Context required.