Maybe some people won't agree, but I believe the best way to deal with people you don't agree with is kindness, rather than violence of any sort.
- Consider your own perspective; would you really change your mind when people are aggressively trying to force you?
- Take the moral high ground, don't lower yourself to their level, lead by example, what makes us better if we act the same?
- Plant the seeds of empathy, not of hatred, as much as I understand how deep some of these disagreements go.
@anthropy I think this is broadly true, but not universally. It's a good baseline when interacting with friends or even strangers that you are speaking to directly, but.
Sometimes someone needs to hear something point blank in a way that cannot be ignored or waved away. This applies especially when speaking to a broad, vague public but sometimes even when speaking to individuals.
Generally, "approach people with kindness" is a strategy that works if the point you are trying to make is relatively uncontroversial or you have a strong standing (eg. you are a man), but there's a whole set of points that people simply will not consider seriously unless presented harshly, and this doubly applies when you are (multiply) marginalized.
(I'm bringing this up mainly because it's very easy to overextend "approach people with kindness" into tone-policing, if that nuance is not considered.)
@anthropy This simply isn't true, in my experience. Explaining with compassion *appears* to be more effective, that much is true, but there is a big difference between apparent effectiveness and true effectiveness.
The problem with systemic discrimination is that it is impossible to address on an individual scale, because - by definition - the discriminated party is at a power disadvantage, and they both have less energy to spend and need to use more of it to argue their case than someone who is in favour of the systemic discrimination.
"Explaining with compassion" essentially fits into this category; it is a very high-energy-demand approach that, at best, convinces a single person to act somewhat better (and rarely enough to matter). This can never work at scale.
Which leaves the option of fighting against it on a societal level. And *that* requires aggressive pushback, it requires the use of 'power amplifiers', to make the systemic discrimination socially unacceptable. And the single most effective way to do that is... confrontation.
It will *appear* less effective because it makes people dislike you on a personal level. But on a societal level, the message (and underlying social norms) absolutely stick a lot better than with the compassionate approach.
As for law, it absolutely is not neutral by any stretch of the imagination. It is defined and enforced by the dominant ideology, which usually is an oppressive one, because that is what centralized power attracts and optimizes for. It only *looks* neutral if you fall into the demographic which those laws were designed to serve.
@joepie91 I have to disagree there. I do think empathy and compassion can scale, although what counts as empathic and compassionate may be personal, I definitely do think that being violent about this will always lead to violent pushback, which should be the last thing you want if you're a minority.
I very much understand the desire, and I personally empathize in that sense with people who don't want to spend the energy to be kind in the face of the big bad world. But I do think it works better
@anthropy As a marginalized person you will get violent pushback regardless of how compassionate you are, frankly
@joepie91 that's why I find it a very difficult subject :( I definitely empathize, and I don't wish to generalize or speak for others who are suffering from discrimination as a marginalized group. It sucks, no argument there, I really wish I could do more.
But I will always calmly explain to those who openly discriminate, or are violent, that I think this is a bad idea. I will try convince them by showing them what compassion can be like. I think the foreign firefighters are an amazing example.
@anthropy I'm not saying you can't or shouldn't take this approach, to be clear! If you feel that you can afford the time and energy to do so, that is completely fine and I encourage it.
The background for my response here is the long-running problem where marginalized folks, who have often been organizing and campaigning for years or decades, are being constantly tone-policed by (mostly privileged) folks with no skin in the game and no experience, telling them that they are being "too aggressive, you won't achieve anything that way" (when they have very good reason to believe otherwise).
And that tone-policing is basically always backed by exactly these beliefs, and an "everybody knows that..." insinuation to go along with it. That is not the fault of any one specific person, but it does make it necessary to provide some pushback against this belief where it pops up.
@joepie91 that's entirely fair! I definitely don't mean to do 'tone policing' in that sense, I don't really want to police anyone, I just have a strong personal belief that even when it's tough it's better to be compassionate and patient with people-- I wouldn't expect it from people that have to deal with shit all day though, I only truly expect it from myself.
I believe everyone wants empathy, and tbh, if you or anyone else ever needs me to be that calmth against a sea of rage, just poke me 💙
@joepie91 the reason i find it difficult, even though I very much understand and wouldn't blame any marginalized group that has lashed out in the face of discrimination, is because personally, i've often seen violence evoking more violence, even if it does force people to comply.
I've had to explain it to radicalized people before; they would say "but they were mean and violent to us!", my best argument was "I definitely understand, put yourself in their shoes!", which is a call for compassion.
@anthropy Aggression is definitely a thing to use wisely. But even with the 'violence evokes violence' issue, there are still situations where it is strategically the best option; particularly those where (some form of) violence is already the known outcome regardless of what you do. There's no extra cost to aggression in those cases, and often quite a bit of effect to be gained.
That's not all situations either, but it does apply to depressingly many of them when you are marginalized...
@anthropy (Taking into account especially that many forms of violence are not easily recognizable if you are not the affected party)
@joepie91 I find this a difficult subject.
In one sense, I'd agree, there needs to be some base law against e.g discrimination to force people to be accountable for discriminating.
But on the other hand, if you act aggressive and/or violent about this rather than calmly and with compassion explain why this is bad, and how it could even affect themselves, you'd have far less chance to actually convince people.
Law is somewhat neutral in that sense, it holds people accountable, without a reason.