So there is this guy at my college (UK) and he is a monarchist and definitely right wing and the topic of Daunte Wright’s Murder came up in conversation and he was excusing the cops actions, which is just disgusting. He was saying that down to nerves the cop didn’t realise it was a gun and also brought up that Daunte had a warrant on him, which I have not heard of.
So the guy is a **** and burden on society (makes racist, homophobic, transphobic jokes) and at the time I wanted to prove him wrong and educate his ass but I didn’t know how, so how can I deal with a situation like this?
“the guy is a **** and burden on society … I wanted to prove him wrong and educate his ass”
This guy is not your enemy, and there isn’t a fight to win, there’s no zinger or quip that is going to cause him to have an epiphany. In order to have any productive conversation you must genuinely listen to him, find things you have in common, and establish trust in each-other.
Braver Angels is an organization doing incredible work to repair the political division in the US. Below are some of their strategies for facilitating 1:1 conversations across a divide:
- Emphasizes storytelling, listening, and learning rather than declaring or debating.
- Both people share and learn. Neither is teaching the other or giving feedback about how to think or say things differently.
- Participants take turns responding to a series of questions of increasing depth, with the other person listening without cross talk, and then sharing what they learned about the other’s views and experiences, and seeing if there is something in common.
- Ends with both people coming up with action ideas to make a difference.
- After the structured conversations are over, participants often decide to continue talking to each other in unstructured conversations. This allows them to dig deeper into issues, ask the other’s opinion about current events, and keep up with their partner’s health, pets, children and grandchildren.
I just listened to an excellent podcast today which interviewed the CEO of Search for Common Ground a peace building organization, I think you might get a lot out of hearing some of the stories he tells and thinking about how you can approach conflicts in your own life.
There is certainly more going on beneath the surface of your acquaintance’s beliefs; he has valid experiences and thoughts that support his beliefs even if they are inaccurate interpretations of reality. Figure out why he thinks the way he does by hearing his stories. Be kind, and approach with an open mindset ready to learn about him. Then, you can share your own stories that inform your beliefs.
Thanks, I don’t view him as an enemy I want to broaden his mind. some common ground would be good and I’ll have a look at those articles
These links might be helpful in understanding the conservative mindset:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P55t6eryY3g
Conservatives want the existing social/economic/power hierarchies to be conserved because:
- they believe that the hierarchies maintain stability.
- they believe that the hierarchies benefit them.
- they believe there is some kind of natural order to these hierarchies. e.g. rich/white/male/straight/cis people rise to the top.
In my opinion/experience conservatives are more dishonest and are more accepting of dishonest tactics being used as long as they believe it is beneficial to their cause. E.g. everyone knows Trump lie’s all the time, its just conservatives don’t care.
Is your goal to change this persons mind, or is your goal to change the audiences mind?
You are unlikely to convince this person of anything in a debate because they will not enter an honest debate. @tronk@lemmy.ml has posted links that talk about this more.
If you want to convince everyone else then you should have talking points:
This sounds awful. I’m sorry.
I’m not married to these sources but they could help?
Thank you, thankfully I’m changing to a different college soon. Hope you are having a good day
Sometimes people this repulsive already do a good job isolating themselves into an echo chamber. Maybe just treating him like he’s not someone you want to associate with will inspire others to do the same.
Most people don’t really trust the cops - you might be surprised. The rhetoric that reactionaries like this individual use in debate just muddies the waters and makes it worse (they will sealion, strawman, etc.). Sometimes it’s enough to leave it at “Then why are so many minorities dying in cop interactions while so many white mass-murderers get taken alive? Weird, huh?” and let it be known his statements aren’t a consensus.
You can’t get rid of these social structures by trying to control others’ interactions and perceptions, it just leads to more of the same. Live by example and let it spite them instead. And never let them use your name; if the guy tries to show common ground between the two of you let it be known there isn’t any.
I don’t think ignoring and isolating someone is ever a real solution. If OP wants the possibility of a positive outcome he should get to know this guy beyond politics. Everyone always has more in common once they get to know each other. Living by example is good advice, but if his goal is to spite someone else that is not living by an example worth following.
Ever? Because that sounds like the same logic victim-blamers use to get victims to stick with their abusers. Isolating yourself from someone is in many cases the absolute best option. So let’s not be hyperbolic.
Being tolerant to the intolerant is a flawed strategy, so much so that it has a name: The paradox of tolerance.
Likewise when you tolerate another person’s intolerance you are showing them that their bigotry and hatred is simply a difference of opinion. This is dangerous because these are not simply differences in opinions. These beliefs reinforce systemic structures that get people killed day in and day out. By treating such opinions like just that - opinions - you are legitimizing oppressive structures. Even if your intent is to disprove these oppressive opinions through debate, the issue is that the simple act of debating is enough to bring legitimacy to a dangerous ideology. You are essentially telling minority groups that their right to exist is simply another talking point which is up for debate and questioning, while telling the bigot that their ideas are acceptable in day to day life. They absolutely shouldn’t be.
Probably the best thing to do is ask him why he believes what he believes in his own terms, and see what bits he just takes on faith.
Also if you actually want to interact with him, make it clear you dislike racist, homophobic, and transphobic jokes. State plainly why they’re hurtful and explain the falsehoods behind them. A calm, empathy-to-empathy discussion has been shown to make people less bigoted.
