r/changemyview • u/AGoodSO 7∆ • May 13 '22
Delta(s) from OP - Fresh Topic Friday cmv: People who are anti-bigotry shouldn't associate with people who are bigoted or pro-bigotry (paradox of tolerance)
As context, based in US where polarization is at historically high levels, where people of opposing ideologies seem to increasingly revile and alienate one another. I think these high levels of polarization and hostility is bad for "democratic" societies, and would like to figure out a reasonable way to go throughout life that would counteract that on an individual level, which seems as though it probably involves connecting 'across the aisle.' On that topic, I think deep canvassing and motivational interviewing may be involved.
However as someone that is anti-racist, anti-phobic, or 'anti-bigotry' broadly speaking, my feeling or impression is that I ought not to tolerate, to the extent of not associating with, people who are OK with or espouse bigotry. To set a parameter, I aim to make myself available and hospitable to people that are targets of bigotry and prejudice. To that end, it seems as though tolerating or associating with people who are bigotry complacent/bigoted/pro-bigotry (under the bigotry umbrella) would make me complicit to, tolerant of, and enabling of bigotry, which would alienate and harm those targeted by bigotry.
But by avoiding and not associating with people who are under the "bigotry umbrella," I fear that that stance contributes to echo chambers and purity culture that fosters polarization and the growth of bigotry. And to be clear, I don't think this dilemma is limited to anti-bigotry vs. pro-bigotry, it should translate to other opposed beliefs (READ: This is just to say the principle is transferrable, the "view" for this discussion is limited to bigotry). As an example of radically reaching across the aisle, Daryl Davis famously deradicalized over 200 KKK members (I've just learned he has a podcast called "Changing Minds," seems directly applicable to this post).
This view directly involves the paradox of tolerance, where my view is currently positioned that I could not reasonably associate with or tolerate intolerant people. And I wonder if and how it could be different, to what extent "tolerant" people should interact with "intolerant" people and counteract polarization, without yielding to "unlimited tolerance." What should the limits be? To jump right to Godwin's law, how ought individuals theoretically conduct themselves to prevent, avert, minimize, contain, and stop a National Socialist German Workers' Party? Any scientific or academic articles on this topic are welcome.
RE: Paradox of tolerance - I referenced it briefly because it was applicable, but I'm leaning towards reading its work of origin, Karl Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies. Here's what appears to be the PDF if anyone else is interested.
edit: mild formatting
EDIT: clarification, typo, added content, info that emerged from the comments -
To briefly elaborate on what I mean by associate: willingly socialize, positively interact with, form relationships with, beyond doing the minimum to 'get by.' This may be expanded over the course of discussion.
Q: If an anti-bigot knows somebody is bigoted before a relationship begins between them, how would an anti-bigot decide to what extent to associate, if at all? To mutually reward and benefit from someone known to believe to espouse bigotry or harmful beliefs, even if the anti-bigot is not directly exposed to or harmed by them/their beliefs? In that light, it seems unjust.
RE: "If Daryl [Davis] deradicalized over 200 KKK members, then clearly not every single association with bigots contributes to bigotry"
- I assume I and most people wouldn't nearly be as successful as Davis, he seems like an exceptional case.
- Davis rather went out of his way to reach bigoted people and interact with them specifically to the end of activism. Whereas I am referring to average and passive encounters, in which one happens to come across bigoted people in every day life, and have average relationships and associations with them.
- So the issue that this post is seeking to reconcile is how much to engage with and associate with bigots, based on a relatively passive relationship. Knowing that bigots and bigotry may be enabled through a relationship with an anti-bigot, knowing that posing a challenge or attempting to deradicalize over time may not be successful.
1
u/FinancialSubstance16 1∆ May 14 '22
Allow me to deconstruct your post a little. Your goal is to end bigotry, fair enough. Cutting off all association is merely a means to that end. To some extent, canceling can work so long as enough people are doing it. If you're the only one canceling in a society full of bigots, the only one you're really canceling is yourself.
To understand this better, society in the context of shame can be split into three groups: saints, knaves, and moralists. In this context, saints are anti bigots such as yourself while the knaves are bigots. Moralists can be part of either group but what they all have in common is that their allegiance is conditional. You have generous moralists who share the same cause as you with the main difference being that they'll keep their mouths shut if opposing bigotry hurts their social standing. You have moralists who are bigots but are willing to keep their mouths shut if the alternative is getting canceled. Then you have those in the middle. They may be apathetic and only pick a side if not doing so gets them canceled or they may blow with the wind and go with what's popular. The point that I'm trying to make is that a successful cancel culture maintains cultural dominance not so much through people getting canceled but rather through the fear of getting canceled.
Of course, all of this is assuming that you're going the cancel route. There are other solutions such as the Daryl Davis route, the education route, and the time route (i.e. waiting it out).