United States Politics Thread 46

[Travis B.]

Again with all your armchair philosophy about the Overton window while people are dying in the streets

I think the argument is: Overton window moving left ⇒ racism becomes discredited ⇒ less racism ⇒ less people dying in the streets. Travis seems to think that this is a more effective way of making society less racist than directly arguing with racists. Personally, I’m not sure which would be most effective.

The racists who are likely to actually kill people are those who are least likely to be influenced by argumentation. However, if one delegitimizes racism even on the right by shifting the Overton window leftwards, fewer people will be fed racist propaganda and thus fewer people will become hardcore racists and fewer of them will kill people, the existing hardcore racists will be discredited even amongst their fellow travelers and thus will be less likely to be egged on into killing people, and so on.

[Vijay]

Just shut up.

[Travis B.]

I don't think that arguing about liberalism is a solution to racism.

THEN FOR FUCK'S SAKE, DO SOMETHING ABOUT RACISM SO MY BLOOD ISN'T ON YOUR HANDS!!!

My point was that arguing about liberalism is about eliminating factors detrimental to moving the Overton window leftwards and thus discrediting racism. It itself does not address racism, but it is necessary if we are to do something about racism.

[Vijay]

*head crashes on keyboard*

[Travis B.]

Have you even read my posts above? Or is your head intersecting your keyboard simply because I don't agree with your suggested program of arguing with racists and hoping for the best?

[Vijay]

Is anyone going to shoot you because they think you're a terrorist?
No.
So shut the fuck up.

[bradrn]

Hold on. Travis, let me clarify something: what, exactly, did you mean by saying that arguing about liberalism is not ‘a solution to racism’? Do you mean that it’s useless to solving racism? Or did you mean that it’s a necessary step, but is not in and of itself a complete solution?

[Travis B.]

You're making no sense here.

[Vijay]

But paying no attention to racism totally makes sense. Oh, very logical. That's totally going to save all our lives.

[Travis B.]

Hold on. Travis, let me clarify something: what, exactly, did you mean by saying that arguing about liberalism is not ‘a solution to racism’? Do you mean that it’s useless to solving racism? Or did you mean that it’s a necessary step, but is not in and of itself a complete solution?

I meant it is a necessary step but not a solution unto itself, that more is needed beyond it to have a solution.

[Vijay]

It is only a strategy to distract from racism.

[Travis B.]

But paying no attention to racism totally makes sense. Oh, very logical. That's totally going to save all our lives.

I am all for things like holding counterdemonstrations when racists hold demonstrations simply for propaganda's sake by making the racists look outnumbered and insignificant. But I don't expect counterdemonstrations to convince a single racist - rather, they are propaganda aimed at the general public, not at the racists.

[Vijay]

And you also aren't going to listen to people who are actually affected by racism directly. You're not going to listen to someone who can get shot because of how he looks.

You are a completely irresponsible and arrogant idiot. I am done with you for today. Never speak about politics again.

[bradrn]

Hold on. Travis, let me clarify something: what, exactly, did you mean by saying that arguing about liberalism is not ‘a solution to racism’? Do you mean that it’s useless to solving racism? Or did you mean that it’s a necessary step, but is not in and of itself a complete solution?

I meant it is a necessary step but not a solution unto itself, that more is needed beyond it to have a solution.

OK. So you believe all of the below is true?

1. It is important to solve the problem of racism.
2. To do so, it is necessary to first argue about and clarify the beliefs of liberals and leftists.
3. After this, more is needed to solve racism. But racism cannot be solved without first doing (2).
4. Arguing with racists is one possible solution, but it is less effective if we do not first do (2).

[Travis B.]

And you also aren't going to listen to people who are actually affected by racism directly. You're not going to listen to someone who can get shot because of how he looks.

You are a completely irresponsible and arrogant idiot. I am done with you for today. Never speak about politics again.

You're seriously pulling the "I'm a POC, so therefore I know better than you" card while not proposing any ideas that would actually work while simultaneously seemingly ignoring the substance of what I was saying. Seriously?

[Travis B.]

Hold on. Travis, let me clarify something: what, exactly, did you mean by saying that arguing about liberalism is not ‘a solution to racism’? Do you mean that it’s useless to solving racism? Or did you mean that it’s a necessary step, but is not in and of itself a complete solution?

I meant it is a necessary step but not a solution unto itself, that more is needed beyond it to have a solution.

OK. So you believe all of the below is true?

1. It is important to solve the problem of racism.
2. To do so, it is necessary to first argue about and clarify the beliefs of liberals and leftists.
3. After this, more is needed to solve racism. But racism cannot be solved without first doing (2).
4. Arguing with racists is one possible solution, but it is less effective if we do not first do (2).

I agree with points 1, 2, and 3. About point 4, to me arguing with racists can have a purpose, but as political theater as propaganda aimed at the general public rather than something truly meant to convince many racists.

[bradrn]

Unlike you, I believe it is possible to convince racists to give up racism. And I believe this because it has happened: e.g. Daryl Davis. The problem is that it’s tricky and takes a lot of time and effort, so in the short term I’m not sure how well it would work at scale.

[Travis B.]

Unlike you, I believe it is possible to convince racists to give up racism. And I believe this because it has happened: e.g. Daryl Davis. The problem is that it’s tricky and takes a lot of time and effort, so in the short term I’m not sure how well it would work at scale.

The problem is scale - for something to be a workable solution, it has to be workable at a societal scale, because racism really is a societal, not an individual problem. One can potentially convince individual racists to give up their beliefs, but as you say, it takes a lot of time and effort, and probably is only doable at a small, personal scale. Therefore it is not worth it as part of a greater political program.

[Travis B.]

One thing I should clarify is the reason why we need to deal with the left's issues is that the right uses them as propaganda to move the Overton window rightward - if ideas like "white fragility" are alienating to me, they certainly are to people in the center, and the right knows this and exploits this to their advantage. So many ideas that originated in the left have been turned against it by the right, e.g. the right now loves to talk about people "canceling" this and "canceling" that, as propaganda, when the idea of "canceling" something originated in the left.

[Travis B.]

Along with what I said about counterdemonstrations, large (and the larger the better) peaceful demonstrations are useful propagandistically by showing the general public that a large portion of society is on our side and not theirs, and thus helping shift the perceived center of mass of society to the left. Note that peaceful is the key word, because violent demonstrations are easily exploited by the right to discredit the left - as much as far left-wingers like to think that targeting capitalists' property is okay, property destruction is readily latched onto by the right and used as propaganda against the left.