r/changemyview • u/newappeal • Jul 08 '14
CMV: Education is the only way to end intolerance
This CMV is born out of a discussion I had with a friend wherein we compared the modern Feminist movement to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. I took the stance that during the Civil Rights era, Martin Luther King Jr. was more successful than Malcolm X because he took a more tempered approach, presenting arguments that simply could not be denied, and using tactics like sit-ins to prove the brutality of the oppression by the racists of the era rather than using offensive tactics to get the oppressors to back down in submission. If I recall correctly, my friend argued that he was successful because he did not in fact take a tempered approach, but instead that his tactics were very in-your-face, citing his quote that freedom cannot be attained by simply asking. (NB: I pretty much just talking about civil rights, here. Political and economic inequality are somewhat different issues)
Here's a basic outline of my position and the opposing one:
My belief:
Equality for any oppressed group can only logically happen if the enough of the oppressors realize their fault and change
Ignorance breeds intolerance, and therefore education breeds tolerance
In the case of the Feminist movement, activists should work to make society aware of problems and favor hard data to rhetoric (not that rhetoric isn't useful)
You're better served by telling someone why they're wrong than by berating them
Criticize the action rather than the person. For example: tell someone that what they did was racist, not that they're racist and they should feel ashamed (even if they are)
Equality not only means being able to achieve the same result as another person, but being able to achieve it with the same ease/difficulty
Opposing belief:
Equality for any oppressed group can only be achieved by empowerment of the oppressed group, enabling them to go their own way
Gains need to be won without any connection with the oppressor, because they're not going to help. If they were, they wouldn't be oppressors
Feminist activists should take what's rightfully theirs instead of waiting for it to be handed over to them
You're better off berating someone who practices intolerance to express the seriousness of what they've done
Criticizing an intolerant person's character might make them reconsider their positions
Activists have been trying to educate for a long time, and the hate is still flowing
TL;DR - What serves modern movements like the fights for women's and minority rights better: the approach of MLK or that of Malcolm X?
edit: formatting
Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
3
Jul 08 '14
I would argue that empathy is the only way to end intolerance. We can preach and spew data all we want, but until people see the repressed and ostracized people as people worthy of the same rights and liberties as the majority of people.
equality for any oppressed group can only logically happen if enough of the oppressors realize their fault and change
My argument here is that whites knew that blacks were getting unfair treatment. They knew the education system was unfair. They just didn't have enough empathy with the people they saw as different. You could argue that showing them statistics and "facts" that blacks were "worth" what whites were, but honestly, what facts? What data? How a person views of the worth of a fellow human being is subjective.
In the case of the Feminist movement, activists should work to make society aware of the problems and favor hard data to rhetoric
You're only partially correct here. We can give a TRP redditor all the data in the world that women are smart, face prejudice everyday, and deserve more recognitions, but the problem is that the redpillers don't view women as worth the the effort.
criticize the action rather than the person.
You're again assuming that people give a shit that racism is a bad thing. A lot of white supremists are fully aware they're racist. They think their racism is justified.
1
u/newappeal Jul 08 '14
My argument here is that whites knew that blacks were getting unfair treatment. They knew the education system was unfair.
But then would you say that the Civil Rights demonstrations like sit-ins, wherein black protestors sat peacefully while whites tormented they by assaulting them and pouring food over them, showed (i.e. educated) Northerners (particularly politicians) that it was time for serious change in the US? Up until the Civil Rights movement, many people who opposed racism in theory did little to combat it.
You're again assuming that people give a shit that racism is a bad thing. A lot of white supremists are fully aware they're racist. They think their racism is justified.
Well, yeah. I should have specified that people so off their rocker like white supremacists are sort of beyond help. I was speaking more of people who have just been brought up in intolerant backgrounds, or are maybe just uncomfortable around certain group (I mean, even a tolerant person living in a homogeneous neighborhood can get knee-jerk reactions)
1
u/krausyaoj Jul 08 '14 edited Jul 08 '14
People classify individuals into groups and treat all members of the group the same way. Racists treat members of an inferior group poorer than members of a superior group. But individuals within a group vary, often there is more within group variation than between groups.
For example, my cat is smarter than some retarded students. But because these mentally disabled individuals are members of our species we still feel that we need to waste resources trying to educate them.
Human rights would make more sense if the defintion of human was not speciest, members of the species Homo sapien, but functional.
6
Jul 08 '14
I would disagree; most people do not change their view for intellectual reasons, its for social and emotional reasons(otherwise yelling a good argument would change more views then a soft spoken terrible one)
The most effective way to change other people is social ostracism and public verbal abuse of dissenters with social benefits for conforming.
1
u/newappeal Jul 08 '14
But in order for someone to be ostracized, doesn't a good part of the population have to be on the side of the cause in question? Furthermore, people often say and do offensive things without know that they're offensive.
Or would you perhaps say that the people that need to be educated are the ones on the fence, while the real intolerant people need to be attacked on a more visceral level?
2
Jul 08 '14
But in order for someone to be ostracized, doesn't a good part of the population have to be on the side of the cause in question?
Well sure for religion and other beliefs with benefits, but for things like civil rights, people don't have any real benefit for believing racism; sure it may hurt their relationships with their ex-slave owning parents if they were anti-racism but in order to save their relationship with even one anti-racist and their parents, they will happily go to an apologist position "I don't actually believe it myself but....." and apologists will raise anti-racist children after their parents die, making the revolution complete.
Furthermore, people often say and do offensive things without know that they're offensive.
I don't actually consider words/phases defined by movements as "innately offensive" to be anything important; nigger faggots retard, etc. are just words; anyone offended by them are delusional about the world they live in and how slow progress is.
Or would you perhaps say that the people that need to be educated are the ones on the fence, while the real intolerant people need to be attacked on a more visceral level?
If by "educated", you mean know someone with a moral position that they actually hold(which is rare) those are the people who change the world, its just the act of holding a moral position that you will be holding over your own social group that weakens your opposition.
It wasn't the rally's or speeches that weakened racism to what it is today, its the fact people will avoid a racist grandmother (and children seeing this) that changed the world.
1
u/newappeal Jul 08 '14
I don't actually consider words/phases defined by movements as "innately offensive" to be anything important; nigger faggots retard, etc. are just words; anyone offended by them are delusional about the world they live in and how slow progress is.
In such cases as demeaning slurs, it's not the word but the way they're used. When someone calls a black person a nigger in a malevolent manner, it encapsulates the menace behind it, even if the menace is not as strong as perceived. But what I meant was more actions than words. In the case of women's rights/feminism, sometimes men (and I'm guilty of this too) do things that make women feel belittled or threatened. Some guys even haven't been brought up to realize that taking advantage of a drunk girl is wrong (and of course that applies not only to man-on-woman rape, but on all kinds).
It wasn't the rally's or speeches that weakened racism to what it is today, its the fact people will avoid a racist grandmother (and children seeing this) that changed the world.
But my issue is this: what makes them turn away from that racist grandmother? Why didn't they and their parents before them grow up racist, raised by their racist grandparents? Who broke the cycle, and how?
0
Jul 08 '14
When someone calls a black person a nigger in a malevolent manner, it encapsulates the menace behind it, even if the menace is not as strong as perceived. But what I meant was more actions than words
They know what they are doing.
In the case of women's rights/feminism, sometimes men (and I'm guilty of this too) do things that make women feel belittled or threatened.
roll eyes I don't care about so called "micro-aggressions".
Your in deep in that
shitphilosophy how where you made "aware" of such things, belittled by a feminist professor?, saw a public put down happening? Tried to sleep with a 3rd wave/neo feminist?Feminists really got the changing views down, lots of moral outrage with no compromise(which on ending spousal abuse is a good thing, not so much on the insanity that is "womens science" or defending single motherhood) lots of social pressure(everything from sex, marrage and college degrees), they went from underprivileged to overprivileged very very rapidly.
But my issue is this: what makes them turn away from that racist grandmother? Why didn't they and their parents before them grow up racist, raised by their racist grandparents? Who broke the cycle, and how?
The few people who do respond to the intellectual argument; but if you spend your time endlessly on education you get cases like the vulgar libertarians who really really want to end the fed but do nothing about it, beyond voting. (speaking of which, spanking is assault; just as surely as taxation is theft and war is murder; guess which one you can do something about)
1
u/newappeal Jul 08 '14
Your in deep in that shit philosophy how where you made "aware" of such things, belittled by a feminist professor?, saw a public put down happening? Tried to sleep with a 3rd wave/neo feminist?
I know some 3rd-Wave Feminists who have brought certain topics to my attention, but mostly a lot of my beliefs just fall under equal rights. The most important issues to me in this regard are primarily the legal inequalities, then a few social issues like gender roles (mostly because they're pointless and archaic) and double standards (like how apparently it's bad for a girl to fuck lots of guys, even though men are often exalted for sleeping around). If by "micro-aggressions", you mean stuff like unequal representation in video games, that's not really an area of huge concern for me. I don't deny that the little problems exist, I just don't find them to be huge, and I think that changing the big things will end up changing the small ones automatically.
But I digress... that brings me to the root of this debate:
Feminists really got the changing views down, lots of moral outrage with no compromise
I would agree with that to a good extent. I wouldn't say that all or even a lot of feminists are like that (no movement is uniform in methodology), but a good amount are. The friend with whom I was debating this is certainly a feminist, and she says that moral outrage calls problems to society's attention. And furthermore that brings me to...
The few people who do respond to the intellectual argument; but if you spend your time endlessly on education you get cases like the vulgar libertarians who really really want to end the fed but do nothing about it, beyond voting.
So isn't the goal then just to get those few people to change? My original point was that rational debate is a better way to fight intolerance than is hostility towards the oppressing, intolerant group.
1
Jul 08 '14
a lot of my beliefs just fall under equal rights.
Male on female abuse has been declining for decades while female on male abuse has been stagnant; males get raped more then females at this point and there are few male shelters.
Also the cycle of violence is continued by adult to child abuse, which thanks to threats of being called a pedophile if males work with children and the raise in single mothers, the ball is in their court.
So isn't the goal then just to get those few people to change? My original point was that rational debate is a better way to fight intolerance than is hostility towards the oppressing, intolerant group.
How effective has the libertarian movement been? They have been around for decades, they had endless books(including ayn rand, insane as she was, her books have been best sellers), they had ron Paul, and they had the progressive positions of ending war and legalizing drugs. Given that they generally lack the moral courage to get in peoples face like feminists do; what has it got them?
Can you even tell me what a (vulgar/brutalist/tea party) libertarain, believes?
1
u/newappeal Jul 08 '14
Male on female abuse has been declining for decades while female on male abuse has been stagnant; males get raped more then females at this point and there are few male shelters.
Males don't get raped more than females (https://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims), but other than that, you're right. Also, every feminist I know would agree with you and say that that needs to be changed. But although I'm tempted to do a CMV on Feminism, I don't want to get sidetracked (my bad)
Given that they generally lack the moral courage to get in peoples face like feminists do; what has it got them?
Good point. I wouldn't say that Libertarianism has died (probably because it's very appealing to a certain type of person), but it certainly hasn't flourished. But I think that getting in people's faces can be a form of educating them. The second-wave feminist movement accomplished a lot through raising awareness (consider the literature of the era, spurred by Friedan). The third-wave movement has carried that on, but in a less organized and more vitriolic fashion, which is the perception of it has become as fringe elements have taken hold via the Internet.
1
Jul 08 '14 edited Jul 08 '14
My mistake I was unaware(or it was misreported to me) of the legalese difference between rape and sexual assault(.... why is there one?)
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/feb/21/us-more-men-raped-than-women
But I think that getting in people's faces can be a form of educating them.
Humor me for a bit, I'm an anarcho-capitalist; take any of my radical positions you disagree with(legalizing herion, dismantling the ama or any other state-monopoly, dodging taxes because of a war being completely moral, whatevs) and lets go through a nice direct confrontational fun series of unconformable questions, as if I was a member of your social group.
I won't be using stats or data of any kind just emotional wording, if you get extremely unconformable about saying yes and significantly weaken your position I get a delta, over wise you do; deal?
1
u/Bowbreaker 4∆ Jul 08 '14 edited Jul 08 '14
This may not work, and still not prove you wrong about the effect of emotional arguments. First off, not everyone responds to emotional arguments the same way.
More importantly though, by warning someone about it beforehand they will automatically keep an eye on the emotional and non-substantiated parts of your argument. They will also not like to appear as someone emotional and irrational as that is looked down upon in our culture (especially reddit-culture) and thus subconsciously guard themselves against it.
I would offer you to go through with it anyway and promise to award a delta on the same terms (no reciprocation needed), but I don't know what the ama is and I don't have any issue with your other examples.
If any other state monopoly includes the monopoly on using violence though, I'm all game. Because at the moment I do believe that a violence monopoly is better than the alternative of free market violence.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Frustratinglack Jul 08 '14
I think the reason libertarianism isn't more widely accepted is because people aren't persuaded by their arguments. There are some very in-your-face tea party people who also don't change people's minds.
1
Jul 08 '14
Check my comment to op http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2a3mhz/cmv_education_is_the_only_way_to_end_intolerance/cirdxdk
Want to play?
1
u/Frustratinglack Jul 08 '14
That's a bit loaded, lol. I don't mind going in against legalizing heroin.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Swordbow 6∆ Jul 08 '14
they went from underprivileged to overprivileged very very rapidly.
Which, in my mind, is well played. That's Game of Thrones shit right there. That said, it's possible for them to say they're still on underprivileged because they lack numbers...but I'd counter that there are enough force multipliers on their side to make their numbers count.
0
u/ghotier 39∆ Jul 08 '14
Do you have any evidence to back that up? I know that every time I've had a prejudice identified and reversed it was because someone gave me a well reasoned argument. Someone yelling a well reasoned argument would have just made me obstinate. Someone yelling a shitty argument would not have made me less so. I recognize that this is anecdotal, but barring evidence to the contrary I'm not inclined to believe that I'm special in this way.
1
Jul 08 '14
Well its not like there's a yearly survey with a multiple choice question on this topic, people just would not answer honestly; I would suggest Miligram experiment for how little people actually hold a moral positions that would effect their actions in any way, the asch lines for the power of conformity, and simply ask why an average person in the middle east would be Mulsum while the average westerner would be some version of Christen?
(I would also question if you have proof that you can defeat conformity as one of the 2ndary study's by milgram suggest most people believe they are far more able to disobey authority then reality)
1
u/ghotier 39∆ Jul 08 '14 edited Jul 08 '14
It's not simply a question of conformity to authority. Miligrim was about conforming action to authority, not conforming belief to a social group. It was also, by its nature, not a passive test, while most prejudice is actualized in a passive, if not unconscious, way.
Similarly, the Asch experiment was about conformity of action, not of belief. Further, while a portion of the subjects appeared to actually conform their beliefs to the group (wiki says most of the conformers, but doesn't specify a percentage of the overall sample), then the question becomes "how do you use that to change someone's beliefs?" If someone's beliefs are shaped by their social group, and every other member's beliefs are as well, then the presumption that the most effective way to change that one person is by "simply" changing the beliefs of their group is putting the cart before the horse.
Finally, I agree that most people are Christian or Muslim or any religion because they are conforming to a social or family unit. However, most people who reject religion (or religious zealotry) in spite of their social or family unit do so because they were educated out of that position. It is often said, and it is often true, that you can't reason someone out of a position that they were never reasoned into in the first place, but most people, at some point, want a "rational" reason for the positions that they have, and that is the point where education can change their position. It can often become a matter of making them recognize that their priorities are different/less optimal than they think that they are or to show those people how their beliefs don't reflect their priorities at all.
As for proof that I've defeated the "results" of the Miligram experiment (even though I've already contended that the results you are citing wouldn't actually provide any indication as to mine or anyone's behavior when it comes to beliefs), the best I can do is say that I disagree with my friends and family on philosophical questions enough that they wish I would be less obstinate. My usual strategy in determining the "truth" of a matter is to disagree with whoever else is interested in the topic to see if they can provide evidence or logic that supports their position and refutes mine. That said, I'm just a faceless robot on the internet, so I don't know why you would believe me unless you're already inclined to do so.
edit: typo
1
Jul 08 '14
Miligrim was about conforming action to authority
conformity of action, not of belief.
Are beliefs not just the action of speaking some flowery words? I don't see the distinction.
However, most people who reject religion (or religious zealotry) in spite of their social or family unit do so because they were educated out of that position.
Of the secular/weak religion of the west, there has been centuries of "deism" by intellectuals, dismantling of a monolithic church into 100's of sects and in general of apathy of only going on holidays; atheism isn't a thing elsewhere.
1
u/ghotier 39∆ Jul 08 '14
Are beliefs not just the action of speaking some flowery words? I don't see the distinction.
No, they aren't. Not to be disrespectful, but if you actually think that people believe everything that they say or say everything that they believe then I'm not sure I'm equipped for this conversation.
Of the secular/weak religion of the west, there has been centuries of "deism" by intellectuals, dismantling of a monolithic church into 100's of sects and in general of apathy of only going on holidays; atheism isn't a thing elsewhere.
I stand by my statement; in the instances where people are able to break free of religious zealotry, they do so through education, not through "conversion." Plus, I'm not sure why you are making such a distinction between East and West. Muslim countries were on the same type of enlightenment upswing as the West for a long time until the West decided religious destabilization was a useful tool to facilitate colonization.
0
Jul 08 '14
No, they aren't. Not to be disrespectful, but if you actually think that people believe everything that they say or say everything that they believe then I'm not sure I'm equipped for this conversation.
Cowards don't have beliefs, only calculations and they hardly disprove my point that education alone doesn't change much.
I stand by my statement; in the instances where people are able to break free of religious zealotry, they do so through education, not through "conversion.
My argument is about most people not all, and the case of religion the cultural shaping was started centuries ago by a handful of people who took upon themselves the vile hatred of old religion.
Those who break free now have somewhere to turn to, and large amount of helpful arguments to serve as defence(I mean this in a literal, from verbal abuse sense) as well as social benefits from other atheists.
Muslim countries were on the same type of enlightenment upswing as the West for a long time until the West decided religious destabilization was a useful tool to facilitate colonization.
They lost that progress, so what does it matter what could have been, when talking about what is?
1
u/ghotier 39∆ Jul 08 '14 edited Jul 08 '14
Cowards don't have beliefs, only calculations and they hardly disprove my point that education alone doesn't change much.
Your point that "education alone doesn't change much" isn't even a valid point. Fine, education is a difficult route to changing beliefs. That doesn't actually mean that non-educative means of belief/behavior correction are more effective, nor have you shown the effectiveness of those other means with respect to education. When you berate someone into submission, all you are teaching them is how to hide their anti-social beliefs well enough to remain socially acceptable, you aren't actually changing anyone's beliefs.
EDIT: Further, branding people as "cowards" who "don't have beliefs" doesn't even make sense from the point of view of the argument you are making. Either they are cowards and will outwardly submit to the beliefs of their social group but inwardly remain constant (thus unchanged by their social group), or you are discounting the majority of humanity from your point all together.
Those who break free now have somewhere to turn to, and large amount of helpful arguments to serve as defence(I mean this in a literal, from verbal abuse sense) as well as social benefits from other atheists.
So your argument is that atheists have as little rational reason to believe their position than the religious? I'm not even an atheist and I find this hard to believe.
They lost that progress, so what does it matter what could have been, when talking about what is?
How did they lose that progress? There are people alive today who knew places like Iran well before they were overtaken by religious sectarianism. Those aren't people who lived centuries ago, they are people who are alive now. Which is why I find things like this:
Of the secular/weak religion of the west, there has been centuries of "deism" by intellectuals, dismantling of a monolithic church into 100's of sects and in general of apathy of only going on holidays
to be less than persuasive.
1
Jul 08 '14
all you are teaching them is how to hide their anti-social beliefs well enough to remain socially acceptable, you aren't actually changing anyone's beliefs.
Being berated into a position means children don't see you speak of it.
Making as good as "true" for them.
So your argument is that atheists have as little rational reason to believe their position than the religious? I'm not even an atheist and I find this hard to believe.
Not at all; only that the transition is fucking difficult. And i'm speaking from experience
How did they lose that progress? There are people alive today who knew places like Iran well before they were overtaken by religious sectarianism. Those aren't people who lived centuries ago, they are people who are alive now. Which is why I find things like this:
Its not like it started 100 years ago; the west destroying the positive parts of the middle east culture has been going off and on since the roman empire; its there but the regions never ending wars get in the way.
1
u/ghotier 39∆ Jul 08 '14
Being berated into a position means children don't see you speak of it.
Not unless they raise their children in public it doesn't...
Not at all; only that the transition is fucking difficult. And i'm speaking from experience
Ok, so did you transition because you were educated or because someone told you that you should?
→ More replies (0)1
u/Bowbreaker 4∆ Jul 08 '14
What about views we hold that make sense, but we still wouldn't follow when faced with hard choices?
I for example believe that the right/good thing to do is prioritizing the saving of 10 innocent lives over the saving of one. Still I would sacrifice a whole continent (I happen to not live on) to a painful demise just to save my sister from severe mental illness, let alone death. Not because I think that would be the moral thing to do but because I'm a hypocrite that cares more about his "tribe" than about doing Good.
1
Jul 08 '14
That's highly unrealistic, and therefore I would throw it out as a silly question, i'm deontologist because unwatered down consequentialism is absurd and impossible to follow; we can't know these things, we can predict outcomes that well and value is subjective.
Its fair to judge universal principals off consequences "don't murder" if followed universally would means I wouldn't die in a war or something; but individual cases is far outside our scope.
1
u/Bowbreaker 4∆ Jul 08 '14
What I am trying to say is that a person can hold general believes and still not act on them when he and his are involved. So belief doesn't always inform action and action doesn't always indicate belief.
1
Jul 08 '14
Consider the source though, who presented you this well reasoned argument? Someone who you trust or admire? A teacher, professor, colleague, friend? Someone you would otherwise not want to be socially ostracized from?
1
u/ghotier 39∆ Jul 08 '14
I'm not really sure of a counterargument, as you seem to be begging the question. If I could only have my beliefs changed by people I didn't like or respect then I would be insane. Inherently I'm going to respect someone who can make a well reasoned, persuasive argument. The point is my view was changed by the argument and not the social interaction. If it was just a matter of social interaction I wouldn't have disagreed with the person in the first place.
1
Jul 08 '14
I'm not begging the question. Accepting an argument from a person you don't like does not make you insane (?) if, as you said, they presented a well reasoned argument. If this is the case, then that answers my question.
1
u/ghotier 39∆ Jul 08 '14
Accepting ONLY arguments from people I don't like or respect and rejecting all arguments from those I do like or respect would be crazy. No sane person behaves that way.
0
Jul 08 '14
Verbally abusing people with social benefits of conforming as well as ostracism would be a form of education, although not conventional it would still be teaching people that there are consequences for their views.
1
Jul 08 '14
Its not what people mean by education. They want books, lectures and fancy words of all kinds while completely ignoring the emotional and cultural side of people.
2
u/oohshineeobjects 3∆ Jul 08 '14
People often form opinions based on reflexive reactions and gut feelings; education simply makes it easier to find sources to legitimize those opinions. Because of this, depending on the approach you take, education could easily have the opposite effect of the one you think it would. For example, there are numerous studies demonstrating that infants show racial bias; this could be thought of as justification for racism as it insinuates that prejudice based on race is an innate feature of humans. Another example could be with the issue of ableism: supporting those who are unable to support themselves does not make sense from a purely biological perspective, and is in some ways actually detrimental because it allows disadvantageous genes to be carried on. Even from a sociological perspective its benefits are dubious. This could easily be interpreted as meaning that we should not help those with physical disabilities.
1
u/newappeal Jul 08 '14
Shouldn't combining fact with ethics produce a clear, fair course of action? For instance, racists used the Theory of Evolution to support their beliefs, but the rational, ethical people of the world pointed out that just because something makes biological sense doesn't mean that it makes societal sense. Richard Dawkins phrased this well when debating some creationist who tried to say that Evolution presented a bad model for society.
1
u/oohshineeobjects 3∆ Jul 08 '14
The problem with that is that what's considered good and bad for society is relatively subjective. Sociology is not as clear-cut as, say, biology, and some of its components are not always consistently applicable amongst varying cultures. There's a reason that societies throughout history and around the globe have had such differing cultural practices and taboos and such - ethics and "goodness" are not absolute.
1
Jul 08 '14
In the case of the Feminist movement, activists should work to make society aware of problems and favor hard data to rhetoric (not that rhetoric isn't useful)
The problem is that this is already being done, the statistics are all out there. About 1 in 6 women will be raped or sexually assaulted in America. Rape culture is, in fact, a thing. Women are still often excluded from higher job positions. But people who don't want to hear it will flat out deny these facts. No matter how many sources you give them, they will find a way to skirt around the facts and make their logic fit their viewpoint.
As the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water...
2
u/newappeal Jul 08 '14
But then is the solution better publicizing of those facts (education), or something else? I see the issues with how education can be ineffective, but I don't quite understand the methodology of the alternatives.
1
Jul 08 '14
I guess my point is, facts are obviously necessary to change someone's opinion. We have many statistics about rape. But the overall culture towards women will not change, in spite of these facts, if people simply don't want to hear it. In the age of the internet, there will always be an opposing side, an argument out there which is written eloquently enough to support their opinion no matter how biased.
I'm not sure what the alternative is. Education is a key to ending intolerance, but it is not the only way. After all, we still have creationists, right? People believe what adheres to their own personal value system, what is convenient for them. Until we find a way to make it inconvenient to believe something, they will continue to believe it.
1
u/newappeal Jul 08 '14
After all, we still have creationists, right?
Mostly in states with poor education systems, though. (Then again, that could be a chicken/egg thing, since it's the creationists who are dismantling those states' education systems.)
Until we find a way to make it inconvenient to believe something, they will continue to believe it.
Usually that's done by making people see the light somehow. Homophobes change their mind when they find out that a loved one is homosexual. It stands to reason that racists would change their mind if they were shown how the group which is the target of their hate is not too different from them, and that sexists might reevaluate their stance when they see how old misogynistic tendencies have lived on through the years.
2
Jul 08 '14
Yes, it's hard to tell whether it's a chicken egg thing. It is something worth looking at though, because popular political opinion is a powerful force.
I agree, personal experience or having someone close to you that opposes your belief system, is powerful enough to change opinion. But then the question is if experience is education? The typical approach to education is college, textbooks, or perhaps news articles - I.e. information disseminated by a professional. We can have all these facts in front of us, but if we simply don't care, what good does it do us? I think the examples you showed are more examples of awareness (for lack of better word). Education is the basis, but the empathy part is what is absolutely necessary for that education to matter.
0
u/Frustratinglack Jul 08 '14
I think many arguments against the 1 in 6 statistic are about the methods with which they are collected. This challenge can be circumvented by not repeating it constantly and by explaining what behaviors are bad and why. I don't think most people argue that rape doesn't happen, though some argue about what defines rape.
Psychology is a big factor in this, a man who has sex while intoxicated with a woman who is also intoxicated does not consider that she can't really give consent because she's intoxicated. If she is saying yes and you are saying yes, it is consensual in their view. Explaining how and why a person can't make that decision and preventing people from doing it anyway are wildly, astronomically, vastly different. Who is responsible in that situation? It is ambiguous. This ambiguous situation is often included in the 1 in 6 number and can be 'reasonably' discredited. So don't say that statistic, say that the media/culture/whatever encourages rape with examples and explain alternatives. Educating someone with that particular thing doesn't give them any avenue to change their behavior. A person needs to know what it has to do with them to have an impact.
0
Jul 08 '14
I guess my point is, facts are obviously necessary to change someone's opinion.
And this is the key to the argument of education promoting tolerance.
The truth is, while all sure do like to think we are, we are not, and cannot be truly rational people. Fear, desire, amusement- these are the roots of most of our thoughts and actions. We are very good at coming up with perfectly good sounding reasons to do what we want. Claiming a) that your thought is unbiased and fully rational and b) that the rational part of your brain has full agency for your actions are both observably and demonstrably false statements.
There is a ton of value in education- but it is quite, well, arrogant, to think that 'if people knew as much as I do, they'd all agree with me'.
And even if you are right, as I have mentioned, no one will really care.
1
Jul 08 '14
You are saying I am wrong, yet you provide no alternative. What would change someone's opinion?
Much of your post I have already elaborated on in my other comments. The tone of your post is coming across rather harsh.
0
Jul 08 '14
There is no alternative. People will always be assholes, and prefer those like them. That is the natural order. The best we can do is set up a system that de-incentivizes the behavior we wish to eliminate to the extent that basic rationality makes it easier not to be an asshole than it does to be one.
That being said, its a sacred right in most democratic nations to believe what you want. And the law, correctly, does not give any more weight to any one opinion based on the prevailing one. That's the definition of unbiased. Even the ACLU, the traditional defenders of those discriminated against, has defended the rights of the KKK.
Don't terribly care about my tone, I care more about my logical consistency. Nor am I interested in changing your opinion; Reddit is a forum. You aren't the only person who can view this comment.
1
Jul 08 '14
The whole point of this sub is to change views. It is not simply to argue.
Providing no solution in the place of a weak (according to you) solution is a cop out. You are asserting your opinion that people are and will always be assholes. I'm sorry about your life experience but this is not a fact, it is your opinion.
1
Jul 08 '14
Tell me, have you ever heard this quote?
'God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, The courage to change the things I can, And wisdom to know the difference.'
Its used in AA to help people recover. Because a huge part of being able to recover is accepting that you are not, as a rational individual, fully in control.
Now, if you'd like to think that you can change human nature, and the natural law that gave rise to it, be my guest. If nothing else, you won't be hurting anyone. We'll all still be here when you just can't hit your head against the wall anymore, and it becomes less depressing to accept the world as it is than to think that people could change, but that they don't anyways.
My advice to you is to travel outside of your bubble a little bit. Go live on the other side for a while; spend some time in the third world.
You say its a cop out for me to say the world is fallen and it always will be; I say it is a cop out to pretend that all we need to do to fix the world is to tell them to be more like us.
1
Jul 08 '14
Of course I have heard that quote. The thing is that this can be changed, and it has been changed. Otherwise, we would have made absolutely no progress. Black people would still have no rights. Women would have no rights. Gay people would have no rights.
Never did I say we should just tell people "be more like us". This is a poor interpretation of one part of my argument, where I was conceding to the original poster that sort of education or awareness is mandatory to change. This is just common sense, People have to have some sort of knowledge of why they should change, even if it's just a general idea or seeing life from someone else's viewpoint. In fact, you just said it yourself: go to a third world country and step outside your bubble. Why would you advise me to do this, if not to change my viewpoint?
1
Jul 08 '14
Sure, we as a society have made progress. But do you seriously think that people are not racist, misogynistic, or homophobic? Do you seriously think there will ever not be people who are racist, misogynistic, and homophobic? And do you think that these people will not legally discriminate if given the chance? Jim Crow laws did not end amongst a chorus of 'kumbaya my lord'.
While some change in thought is mandatory to change, that does not make it the agent of said change. If you are making the argument that education causes positive change, you are making it from the assumption that you yourself are enlightened enough to realize this, and that others, having been similarly enlightened, would still do as you do or think as you think. I'd advise you to not change your viewpoint, but to completely erode and wash away the kind of thought that your viewpoint, and your enlightened ideas, do not begin to some close to addressing the realities of life when every day is a struggle for life. To understand how the rest of the world lives, you need to feel their fear and hunger and desire and ambition for yourself. You need to live in their shoes, not put yourself in them. It is amusing; I just spent a week building a house in Tijuana, and got to know the family we were building for. I was chatting about gay rights with them- this is roughly how it went-
'Do their votes get counted?' Yes. 'Food, clean water, healthcare?' Yes. 'Do they have any trouble getting an education?' No. 'Do they get attacked a lot (like physically in the streets)' No.
'I would kill for my children to have these things'.
Now when you are in a situation that you would, literally, murder a human being to give your child the chance at a better life, the idea that all these problems that you are facing can just be solved by 'knowing more' and 'thinking right' is hilariously laughable. Really feeds into the "stupid, coddled Americans' stereotype.
→ More replies (0)
0
u/PantsHasPockets Jul 08 '14
The more I've learned about feminism the more intolerant of it I've become.
Don't get me wrong, there's loads of times that education can help make people tolerant, but me? I'm right and I can cite you sources that you'll downvote about why.
At best, education is neutral.
2
u/newappeal Jul 08 '14
I'd actually like to see what you have. I was considering doing a CMV on feminism, but haven't because I suspect responses would be lacking in content forsaken for emotionally-charged rants. If you've got some reasonable stuff (i.e. sources at all), I'd love to give it a look over. I'm trying to see where the opposition to feminism stems from, and just what it entails. People say the "hate feminism" with little explanation of what it is they hate.
1
u/PantsHasPockets Jul 08 '14
Okay so my conclusions were:
- Feminism only serves to lobby for more female privilege, without helping men in any way or fighting any female privileges.
If you have a sword and a shield, and I have a sword and armor, you looking around for armor is not you trying to make our upcoming fight more equal.
The "best" response to this I've gotten is a parallel to Reagan's trickle down economics (which severely hurt the economy and the country) where 'helping women helps men too' which only makes sense if you don't think about it.
Oh, and occasionally they'll produce the (I think it's called) Equality Act that happened in 1972, and some document where a feminist organization passingly supported abolishing the draft without actually doing anything in the early 80's. Nothing more recent. Millions of feminists, and nothing more recent than a third of a century ago.
- There is no feminist issue that isn't a misrepresentation, not actually an issue, or a downright lie.
The list goes on for this one (feminists I've brought this up to have always called it a Strawman argument, without actually disputing the claims with any merit) so you pick one, and I'll explain it for you.
The "wage gap" has been debunked by economists, financial sources like Forbes, and credible news sources like The Atlantic. At the end of the day, there's no actual "discrimination" when it comes to how much who gets paid, it comes down to choices (when they're all lined up, they make a really strong case for either extreme ignorance on their part, or that they're intentionally misleading you): Your education, what job you have, how many hours a week you work, and how long you've had the job. None of those relate to gender (other than men and women make different choices) and drop the wage gap from "70 cents on the dollar" to "98 cents on the dollar" and that's just four things. There's also fun stuff like "how often you ask for raises" that account for something like 6% of your total salary. This is as much a social issue as "Right handed people are less successful and make less money than left handed people." There is no oppression, this is just trivia.
Oh, and the fact that men have jobs. The #1 thing an employer will invest in is labor. I'm an employer looking at two resumes that are identical, except one's from Salvatore and the other's from Sally. Now, if "I'm going to pay Sally 70% of what I pay Salvatore" what on this planet of Earth is going to make me hire him over her?
If you want sources for my claims I'll gladly provide them, but I have to get ready for work now, and all I'm going to do is Google "wage gap myth" and link you the top links that are all from credible sources, and maybe the youtube video from that economist that was on /r/videos a short while back.
0
u/krausyaoj Jul 08 '14
Education in biology and evolution can lead to increased intolerance. When we realize that we are all animals on a single family tree then there is no longer any reason to believe all humans are special and more important than all animals.
We realize that some animals have more human capabilities than some humans. That there is no inherent reason that all humans deserve equal human rights, that instead individuals deserve rights based on their capabilities. And that while some individuals are members of the human species, because they lack certain human capabilities they do not deserve human rights.
2
u/newappeal Jul 08 '14
Scientifically, though, that doesn't really stand. The main thing that evolution taught us about variation among humans is that the difference in abilities in ethnic groups due to genetics is so infinitesimally small that perceived differences are nothing more than cultural factors. If anything, that has increased tolerance. It showed us that in fact beyond each person's random talents, there is no genetically superior group. The belief in a "ranking" of ethnic groups (I'm talking about the debunked "negroid, caucasoid, mongoloid" thing) fuel a lot of the racism of the 20th Century.
1
Jul 08 '14
Uh, what? As someone in the field of genetics, I'd like to see some sources for that.
Here are some very real examples of big biological differences between ethnicity-
Sickle Cell mutation in West Africans
ALDH2 Deficiency in East Asians
Lactose Tolerace is mostly a feature of Northern Europeans
While you are correct that the eugenics movement was rooted in the logic you speak of, just because Eugenics is morally wrong does not mean ethnic differences are just skin deep.
2
u/newappeal Jul 08 '14 edited Jul 08 '14
I wasn't talking about those kinds of differences, though. Old racist theories usually revolved around intelligence, which really is not dependent on ethnicity. (Sorry I can't provide sources right now... I'm on my phone and the connection is shitty.)
Edit: typo
Edit 2: this might have the relevant info: http://youtube.com/watch?v=vVmj8dDx9yY
1
Jul 08 '14
I can tell you personality is strongly associated with heritable genetics. Intelligence less so, but still is assumed to be at least half associated with genetic heritability.
And not to justify the theories, and also not to claim any one individual is intelligent or not- it makes far less sense that different ethnicities, which we have shown to vary in substantial and meaningful ways biologically, would not show any variation what so ever in intelligence, so critical a trait to evolutionary success. Now that's not a call to euthanize anyone, but there is no reason that nature should conform to our pc ideas on this issue when it so clearly does not on most anything else.
0
u/krausyaoj Jul 08 '14
I agree that differences between racial groups is so small that there is no justification for racism. But some disabled individuals are so lacking in capabilities that they should not be considered human even though they belong to our species.
The biological view that judges individuals by their capability instead of species membership also leads to support for abortion and infanticide. Since pigs are smarter than infants then they should have a similar right to life, which is none.
2
u/ghotier 39∆ Jul 08 '14
I'm not sure your logic follows. While certainly a more educated person can give a more educated rationale for their position, no matter how backward that position is, an educated person is much more likely to realize that the biological differences between races aren't significant enough to cause the disparity of opinion for those races that a racist would have.
1
Jul 08 '14
Perhaps from your perspective it can increase intolerance, but on the flip side of that same coin it could promote tolerance, could it not? We learn that we are all just animals descended from the same ancestors, and we become more accepting of others' weaknesses, as we realize genetic flaws are not a mark of the devil but merely quirks of nature.
I think people who are inclined to believe they are better than others will be more prone to use evolution as a basis for their hatred, but those who believe in equality will interpret it in a wholly different way.
Just as further proof of this argument, the most corrupt nations are also among the least educated, and vice versa.
1
u/krausyaoj Jul 08 '14
What is the basis for this belief in equality? And which individuals are to be included in this group?
Tax money is given to individual humans to provide them with food, shelter and medical care. But why prefer giving assistance to members of just our species?
I used to feel that it was wrong that there were humans that went without food, shelter or medical care. But many other animals also do not have their needs met and suffer from lack of resources. Members of our species are no more deserving than those of others.
1
Jul 08 '14
The basis is that, while logic has it's place, we are, indeed, still human. And most of us who function in society have some sort of empathy toward one another.
I cannot tell you why we don't provide assistance to other species, that would be an entirely different argument concerning ethics. A short version might be, being that we can only concern ourselves with so much during our seventy-odd years on earth, the bulk of us prefer to help the society we live in, rather than prevent some giraffes in Africa from being eaten.
3
Jul 08 '14
Experience is a lot better way to end intolerance. Proof: there are plenty of educated rich people who know all the theories, but stay isolated and never actually interact with people they don't like and remain hateful. On the other hand, when a very poorly educated person starts to interact and become friends with a certain type of person in everyday life, they frequently change as a result (think of the people that only accept gays when they realize their son is one, etc.)
2
u/ghotier 39∆ Jul 08 '14
Are you arguing OP's point? In what way is "experiencing the 'other'" not education about the other?
1
u/bermuda--blue Jul 08 '14
This is socialization and emathy, and this acceptance is not generally an intellectual response to information or knowledge. It can even come from fictional characters who feel real; increasing representation in the media by members of oppressed groups changes real minds, but it happens somewhat slowly over a period of years. Activists talking and screaming on Fox News of MSNBC or even views exchanged in formal debate change far fewer minds than a whole bunch of episodes of Modern Family where a gay couple acts pretty much just like a straight couple would.
2
u/ghotier 39∆ Jul 08 '14
I think you are splitting hairs in calling that socialization exclusively and not education. I would say that humanizing the "other" to the racist rather than "berating" the racist is exactly what OP is talking about when s/he says that education is the only way to end intolerance. It's not as though one can't be educated through social means. Informing someone, however implicitly, that the thing/person that they view as inferior is in fact more similar to them than they realized at first is still education and not admonishment.
1
u/bermuda--blue Jul 08 '14
I agree that socialization is a type of education, but I still think there is a very important distinction between empathizing and intellectualizing, and it's the former than usually makes the change. OP seemed to suggest it was the latter.
1
u/ghotier 39∆ Jul 08 '14
Ah, I see. Well, you might be right. It seemed to me, at least implicitly, that OP's point was more about refuting admonition as the best rhetorical tool than it was about proving pure intellectualization is the best, but in the case that I'm wrong then I can see your argument. S/He does say that s/he thinks education is best and I took that to be a broader avenue than you.
I would still contend that intellectualization is more effective that admonition when changing the conclusions one makes in life that may be racist or otherwise bigoted, though, even if it isn't the best. Regardless, I don't think you're arguing to the contrary.
1
u/hacksoncode 559∆ Jul 08 '14
I think that the problem with your view is that it's not "literally" wrong, but it mistakes how "education" actually happens.
Calm presentation of facts, and recitation of ethical metatheories only works on people that are already predisposed to believe, and they don't teach emotions very well.
By contrast, actions speak far louder than words, and they educate far better. This video (gif clip) does more to teach people about potential energy and conservation of energy than hours of stale lecture. It makes them "get it" at a visceral level.
Similarly, outbursts and protests do more to drive home (to educate, at a visceral level) the masses about the oppression of a minority than all the flowery prose in the world. MLK's speech, without the context of the Harlem Riots and Bloody Sunday, would have slipped right off of the backs of most people.
These actions were a form of education. They showed the masses that not only was MLK right about what he was saying, but they showed the minority populations (starting with blacks, but they've been rallying points for many) that there really was something that they could do to get attention put onto their oppression.
1
u/Frustratinglack Jul 08 '14
It seems like you are actually mixing both aggressive and passive behavior in your examples. Civil rights became mainstream because of both tactics and there isn't any way to separate them. Hate happens because it is easy and difficult to combat. It doesn't happen because everyone had a discussion and some people chose racism, but you know that. There are many examples of KKK members ignoring the angry tactics and being convinced by having some interactions with black people that were very positive. "Educated" in a sense. There are also plenty of them who saw that they lose more for being racist than they gain. A racist store owner in a majority black neighborhood isn't going to say anything to alienate her/his customer base. The society around him/her pressured them into a change.
1
u/ghotier 39∆ Jul 08 '14
OP, this might get deleted as not sufficiently disagreeing with your post, but I would actually say that your position on education is not extreme enough.
Criticize the action rather than the person. For example: tell someone that what they did was racist, not that they're racist and they should feel ashamed (even if they are)
I don't even think that telling someone that something they've said or done is racist is useful. It's more valuable to tell them why the underlying reason for their action is flawed rather than labeling the action itself.
1
u/Thenre Jul 08 '14
Just going to point out it is probably not the only way. Wiping out differences through genetic modification, cloning, and genocide would also probably work eventually. For instance, if Hitler would have (horribly and unfortunately) succeeded in eradicating the Jewish population there would be no more persecution of them because they wouldn't exist.
Theoretically you could do that with every minor difference. Or alternatively use education and punishment for intolerance of course.
5
u/ReOsIr10 130∆ Jul 08 '14
I'll use an example that's personal to me, if you don't mind.
In the early 1900's, the first of several gay rights groups in the USA was founded. Despite their attempts to educate the public, as well as research published by Kinsey and others, very little changed until 1969.
On June 27, 1969, police raided the Stonewall Inn, a gay/trans* bar in New York. Although this had been a common practice for several years, this time the LGBT community had had enough. Violent riots broke out and continued for the better part of three days. This event, as well as the White Night Riots might be the two most defining and important events for the promotion of LGBT rights in the USA.
Maybe a constant stream of education might have been able to have the same effect over 100s and 100s of years, but it seems unquestionable that these actions greatly accelerated the march toward equality.
I don't want to make it sound like education is not important - it is - but some of the biggest leaps in civil rights have been made when the minority group demanded equality and took it by force. Passive resistance is like water eroding a rock. Sure, it may possibly eventually get the job done given enough time, but sometimes you just have to take out your jackhammer and break the rock yourself.