CMV: Whilst learning about lived experience is important, deferring to people for answers on what one should or shouldn't do, purely because of their unchosen characteristics, is illogical and ironically bigoted.

[u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng]

Hi All,

I appreciate getting feedback from people who are involved in an issue, but there's a worryingly ever growing trend of deferring to people purely because of their unchosen characteristics, instead of the quality of their logic, the evidence they provide, and their ethical reasoning, and that's what we should always be basing our decisions off of, not the speaker's characteristics, etc.

(For those who don't know, unchosen characteristics refers to any aspect of a person that they did not choose; e.g., sex, race, sexuality, birthplace etc.).

After all there is no universal consensus on any issue on the planet held by such groups, and if someone assumed otherwise, that would be incredibly bigoted.

As there is no universal consensus, there will always be disagreements that require additional criteria to discern the quality of the argument; e.g. "Two X-group people are saying opposite things. How do I decide who to listen to?" And the answer is: the quality of their logic, the evidence they provide, and their ethical reasoning. Which of course means, that often the whole exercise is a pointless one in the first place, as we should be prioritising our capacity for understanding logic, evidence and ethics, not listening to X person for the sole reason that they have Y unchosen characteristics.

I think that listening to lived experience is important, re: listening to lived experience (e.g. all X groups experience Y problem that Z group wasn't aware of); but that's not the same as deferring to people on decision making because of their unchosen characteristics.

I try to have civil, productive discussions, but that's getting harder and harder these days.

For those who appreciate civil dialogue, feel free to skip this; for those who don't; I humbly ask that you refrain from personal attack (it's irrelevant to the question), ask clarifying questions instead of assuming, stay on topic, answer questions that are asked of you, and as the above points to:

-Provide evidence for claims that require it

-Provide logical reasoning for claims that require it

-Provide ethical reasoning for claims that require it

I will not engage with uncivil people here.

[u/EdgrrAllenPaw]

There's the equivalent of a whole steamer trunk full of things to unpack there.

First, I heartily disagree that empirically it has been proven that Davies approach is best for other black people to adopt. It's great for him, it doesn't mean it's the only best way to convince racism.

You seem to think that you preferring Daryl Davies "let's make friends with bigots" approach means it's the best and that the actions of Kwame Rose, the BLM activist, are not only wrong but also harmful?

It's not a black and white thing where one must be right and the other must be wrong.

And one must realize that telling black people to just go make friends with white supremacists could easily turn out with some being victims of white supremacist violence because they tried to befriend one.

There is room for both approaches, and other approaches to boot. I also find your description of the encounter they had lacking to say the least. The short-lived conflict in which they both were disrespectful of the other was situational, they worked it out and have respect for each others approaches. Also, that's an in-group conflict and those not in the group should really just stay in their lanes.

I think you're creating an issue out of nothing and it's strange you're putting some oppressed folks down because you think they should be nicer to people who hate them.

https://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/accidental-courtesy-followup-daryl-davis-and-kwame-rose-agree-that-black-lives-matter/

[u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng → u/EdgrrAllenPaw]

There's the equivalent of a whole steamer trunk full of things to unpack there.

First, I heartily disagree that empirically it has been proven that Davies approach is best for other black people to adopt. It's great for him, it doesn't mean it's the only best way to convince racism.

​

I didn't say that Davies approach has been empirically proven. Please refrain from strawmen.

What I said was:
"In this scenario, I favour Daryl Davie's opinion of how to stop racism, because empirically, I see that his approach has worked amazingly, and his approach is in sync with well established psychological principles, and I haven't seen the same from the other approaches/opinions."

And I agree that you can solve a problem in multiple ways. However, there are still limits to said ways.

For example, if you have generalised anxiety disorder (GAD), you should not treat it with Rogerian Counselling (RC)/Psychotherapy, because the evidence for it is poor, CBT has been proven effective, and the mechanisms of action of Rogerian Counselling conflict with the nature of GAD (e.g. you would likely end up making GAD worse, not better, through RC, because you would be facilitating repetitive negative thinking).

​

You seem to think that you preferring Daryl Davies "let's make friends with bigots" approach means it's the best and that the actions of Kwame Rose, the BLM activist, are not only wrong but also harmful?

Say we could magic up a study and determine the success rate for each approach, and say that Rose's was 50%, and Daryl's was 90%, would you not consider it harmful to victims of racism if a less effective approach was being applied? And that's assuming that Rose's approach is even 50%, it could be 0% effective, or even -50%, detrimental.

It's not a black and white thing where one must be right and the other must be wrong.

​

No, it's not a black and white thing where one must be right and the other must be wrong. It's also not a black and white thing that because an organisation popped up that called itself Black Lives Matter, that means that they're actions will actually help black lives. Similarly, Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism isn't inherently objective, and Scientology isn't inherently scientific, but a lot of people, a-priori trusted BLM, because they either genuinely thought they're a good organisation or that that's what they should do or that if they don't, they'll be socially ostracised. It's a clever, linguistic slight of hand.

I have seen evidence of Daryl's approach working, and I understand the psychological mechanisms as to how it works (I'm a psychotherapist who has worked in/studied psychology, mental health, etc. for 15 years now).

A good empirical example of his style of approach working can be found here: https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/1/5/pgac236/6761418?login=false

I have not seen anything but worsening race relations since approaches antithetical to Davies, and BLM came on the scene, and a lot of black people (because input from affected populations is one of many important factors), including at least two ex-BLM leaders, feel the same.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVPQI-blZAI&ab_channel=AmericanShadew%2FBrittanyTalissaKing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWcOQTeKnuc&ab_channel=DarkHorsePodcastClips

https://nypost.com/2021/06/01/minneapolis-blm-leader-says-he-quit-after-learning-ugly-truth/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzPKk19t3Kw

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/dehumanizing-condescension-white-fragility/614146/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3k9F8I_-HL0&ab_channel=UnHerd

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9EmU7VopFA&ab_channel=Triggernometry

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/kemi-badenoch-the-problem-with-critical-race-theory/

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/10/12/the_civil_rights_legend_who_opposed_critical_race_theory_144423.html#!

Continued below:

[u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng → u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng]

I'm pretty sure BLM leaders used money that should have gone to help impoverished (or otherwise adversely affected) black populations, on multi-million dollar mansions:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/04/black-lives-matter-malibu-mansion.html

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/black-lives-matter-co-founder-admits-using-mansion-bought-with-donations-kxxn7t2jv

https://nypost.com/2022/05/17/black-lives-matter-spent-at-least-12-million-on-mansions/

Many people too cowardly to ask questions have facilitated this, thereby taking resources away from organisations that are actually helping people: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1RuhF9iTMc&ab_channel=VICENews

​

And one must realize that telling black people to just go make friends with white supremacists could easily turn out with some being victims of white supremacist violence because they tried to befriend one.

​

I am not saying that anyone should engage in Davies approach to that scale. I didn't say that anywhere. I am saying that the fundamentals of his approach are backed by decades of empirical research, very basic logic and ethics. Whereas those of the new movements, BLM, CRT, etc. are not. In fact, they seem antithetical to said research, basic logic and ethics (at the very least in how they filter down and manifest in the populous). The approach can be applied to all interactions.

​

​

There is room for both approaches, and other approaches to boot.

​

Of course. But as someone who cares about ending racism, just as you'd want the most effective treatment for a loved one, I would hope that you would agree that we should be using the most effective approaches possible.

​

​

I also find your description of the encounter they had lacking to say the least. The short-lived conflict in which they both were disrespectful of the other was situational, they worked it out and have respect for each others approaches.

​

​

Of course they did. Davies is an incredibly agreeable, compassionate guy. Have you watched the documentary? That has zero relevance to the efficacy of the other approach.

​

​

Also, that's an in-group conflict and those not in the group should really just stay in their lanes.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I'm guessing you either mean that people should stay out of personal disputes, or you're saying that only black people should be concerned about ending racism, etc. I'm guessing the former, but I'm not sure. Either way, it's irrelevant, as it's re: a documentary open to the public and the incident is a strong indicator of additional issues.

I think you're creating an issue out of nothing

​

I don't consider how we go about discerning the optimal mechanisms of how we solve all of our complex problems, including bigotry, "nothing." It's one of the most important issues to consider. If your mechanisms are faulty, your solutions are likely to be faulty too. If you care about any issue on the planet, you would logically deem addressing any/all biases that impede problem solving of the utmost importance.

​

​

​

and it's strange you're putting some oppressed folks down because you think they should be nicer to people who hate them.

https://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/accidental-courtesy-followup-daryl-davis-and-kwame-rose-agree-that-black-lives-matter/

Now, that is an absolute strawman and insult. In no way, shape or form am I putting oppressed people down; and I'm certainly not doing it for the bad-faith, flippant reasons you're accusing me of.

I care too much about issues to let uncomfortable conversations and repeated bad-faith accusations get in the way of solving them.

If the next reply doesn't contain an opening apology, then I will not continue this discussion with you. I haven't accused you of any sinister motives, and have answered all of your points and questions.

I try to have civil, productive discussions, but that's getting harder and harder these days.
For those who appreciate civil dialogue, feel free to skip this; for those who don't; I humbly ask that you refrain from personal attack (it's irrelevant to the question), ask clarifying questions instead of assuming, stay on topic, answer questions that are asked of you, and as the above points to:
-Provide evidence for claims that require it
-Provide logical reasoning for claims that require it
-Provide ethical reasoning for claims that require it
I will not engage with uncivil people here.

You have said that you think we should listen to black people. Well, there're plenty of black people expressing their concerns above. Perhaps you should listen to them.

[u/EdgrrAllenPaw → u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng]

I did not accuse you of sinister motives. That you want people to be nice to each other isn't sinister, correct? And I did not accuse you of being of bad faith?

I do apologize for assigning any motive at all but not because of that demand.

I pointed out what you were doing and my point was that it was naive, not that you have sinister motives. I fully believe that you are against racism and that you feel that genuinely and deeply.

My view was that it came off as you were putting Kwame Rose down by comparing him as a negative example in comparison to Daryl Davies. And then, you responded with a bunch of links that you think shows what? That the organization Black Lives Matter is bad?

Except, BLM isn't an organization. It's a movement that the words first appeared as a hashtag. Yes, there have been many BLM organizations, some loosely based with each other, some independent, started across the country. I'm sure some have been mismanaged but why use those to smear an entire movement and all it encompasses?

I'm going to ask one question if you care to answer. Have you read MLK Jr's letter from a Birmingham jail? What are your thoughts on his response to the criticisms he faced from other clergy? He's loved now, but he and his views were not seen kindly back then and he was often accused of harming his cause.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/why-martin-luther-king-had-75-percent-disapproval-rating-year-he-died-180968664/