What did Democrats do wrong?

[johnny karate]

That's all fine and good, it's just a bunch of racists listening to evil propaganda. What do you do with that, knowing that possibly the majority of voters or at least a large minority are a bunch of racists? Do you think, calling them a bunch or racists is actually going to help advance policies you want?

Personally, I think it's a bit more complicated than that.

Cite one historical precedent in which trying to appease racists worked out well.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

It might help you craft a message better than, ◊◊◊◊ you you racist.

Criticism of a political position can only be seen as a personal attack by a person who has identified personally with that position.
If someone in a crowd shouts: "Hey, racist!" and you turn around and get offended, what conclusion might one reasonably draw about you?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Cite one historical precedent in which trying to appease racists worked out well.

clarification: worked out well for somebody other than the racists.

 

[ahhell]

Criticism of a political position can only be seen as a personal attack by a person who has identified personally with that position.
If someone in a crowd shouts: "Hey, racist!" and you turn around and get offended, what conclusion might one reasonably draw about you?I

Now I'm just going to JAQ off. How does that help you get your candidates elected?

 

[johnny karate]

Now I'm just going to JAQ off. How does that help you get your candidates elected?

Insisting that someone surrender their values to achieve a goal is a morally bankrupt sentiment.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Now I'm just going to JAQ off. How does that help you get your candidates elected?

That depends on what percentage of the population are unrepentant racists. If "this is racism and racism is bad" doesn't resonate with you, then I probably don't have an alternative message for you that will.

 

[johnny karate]

It should be noted that a central premise to this political strategy of tolerating racists is that they are not required to tolerate anything in return. Their racism is allowed to remain pristine while it is the rest of us that are required to accommodate them. This is a point of view that says it is a greater sin to call a racist a racist than it is to actually be a racist.

Morally bankrupt.

 

[Emily's Cat]

My sense of it from the local xenophobes is that they are afraid foreigners will bring social norms from foreign cultures (e.g. burkinis instead of bikinis) but of course that's a silly notion which we can easily ignore.

Can't tell if serious or satire...

 

[Emily's Cat]

i guess i don’t understand the negatives of people speaking foreign languages. if you’re uncomfortable with that, i’m sorry but a political party feeding into that and making it seem negative and scary to manipulate you into voting for them is seems awfully racist to me.

I think you're probably interpreting this wrongly. It's not a negative for people to speak a foreign language... but it can be a negative if they only speak a foreign language, and don't speak the dominant language of the nation in which they live well enough to assimilate to a meaningful degree.

 

[Emily's Cat]

We shoild not be expected to tolerate intolerance.

I get where you're coming from, but there's a flaw in your logic.

If you are intolerant of those you deem intolerant, then those of whom you are intolerant should also not be expected to tolerate you. It creates divisiveness and impedes advancement all around.

 

[Hercules56]

I get where you're coming from, but there's a flaw in your logic.

If you are intolerant of those you deem intolerant, then those of whom you are intolerant should also not be expected to tolerate you. It creates divisiveness and impedes advancement all around.

Please explain why we should make excuses and lend a blind eye towards hate & bigotry.

 

[johnny karate]

I get where you're coming from, but there's a flaw in your logic.

If you are intolerant of those you deem intolerant, then those of whom you are intolerant should also not be expected to tolerate you. It creates divisiveness and impedes advancement all around.

The intolerant are already absent toleration. That's what makes them intolerant. You can't become more of a thing that you already completely are.

 

[dirtywick]

it occurs to me too that when we’re talking about tolerating racists to win elections, would we be hearing this if the dems had embraced the anti semitic part of the free palestine extreme left? all the sudden that would probably be a mistake and shouldn’t have gotten in bed with those racists and that’s why they lost?

i wonder would it only apply to a particular brand of racism. racists you have to reach to the right for only

 

[Random]

I get where you're coming from, but there's a flaw in your logic.

If you are intolerant of those you deem intolerant, then those of whom you are intolerant should also not be expected to tolerate you. It creates divisiveness and impedes advancement all around.

The flaw in your logic is that you are treating Tolerance as a personal virtue. Tolerance is a social contract, pretty much the oldest social contract there is. I don't cause problems for you if you don't cause problems for me.

You can do whatever you want as long as you don't cause problems for me. If you do cause problems for me, the contract is broken, and you are no longer protected by it.

Seriously, treat Tolerance as a social contract and the Paradox of Tolerance becomes neatly resolved.

 

[d4m10n]

it occurs to me too that when we’re talking about tolerating racists to win elections, would we be hearing this if the dems had embraced the anti semitic part of the free palestine extreme left? all the sudden that would probably be a mistake and shouldn’t have gotten in bed with those racists and that’s why they lost?

In a conflict between two Semitic tribes who want to control all the land from the river to the sea, it's hard to say who is being racist or even (literally) anti-Semitic.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Please explain why we should make excuses and lend a blind eye towards hate & bigotry.

You don't need to make excuses, nor do you need to turn a blind eye. Tolerance is not acceptance, and it's certainly not celebration.

Just think about the logic Helen proposed, which you seem to agree with. Helen references the paradox of tolerance, which was a mere footnote within an entire body of work lauding the benefits of tolerance. But you've both extended it further than I think is reasonable.

If someone is actively seeking to do you harm, you should certainly not tolerate their aggression. On the other hand, if you perceive someone to be intolerant because they hold different views than you - even views that you and I might both agree are reprehensible - then you've given yourself permission to be intolerant of them. Thus YOU become the one engaging in intolerance. And since you are now the intolerant one, then nobody else should be expected to be tolerant of you.

From a game theory perspective, your approach is a grim trigger, and it's a losing strategy. Even worse is that the philosophical approach involved expects everyone to follow a grim trigger strategy, and it's a self-defeating highly unbeneficial approach.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The flaw in your logic is that you are treating Tolerance as a personal virtue. Tolerance is a social contract, pretty much the oldest social contract there is. I don't cause problems for you if you don't cause problems for me.

You can do whatever you want as long as you don't cause problems for me. If you do cause problems for me, the contract is broken, and you are no longer protected by it.

Seriously, treat Tolerance as a social contract and the Paradox of Tolerance becomes neatly resolved.

Treat tolerance as a communal strategy, and forgiving tolerant approaches are more beneficial for more people than grim triggers.

 

[Random]

Treat tolerance as a communal strategy, and forgiving tolerant approaches are more beneficial for more people than grim triggers.

It's not really a grim trigger if the other side is still attacking you. Forgiveness requires that the action that should be forgiven has stopped. US Conservatives have ben getting worse for decades, with no signs of letting up.

Liberals would love to get past Trump and MAGA, but you can't get past something that is actively still happening.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Treat tolerance as a communal strategy, and forgiving tolerant approaches are more beneficial for more people than grim triggers.

Same problem as with the social contract construction. A communal strategy requires general buy-in from the community in question. On our own, me and my buddies can only implement a communal strategy amongst ourselves. There can't be a communal strategy for tolerance with Republicans unless Republicans also adopt it for everybody else in the community. They don't, and there can't.

 

[dirtywick]

In a conflict between two Semitic tribes who want to control all the land from the river to the sea, it's hard to say who is being racist or even (literally) anti-Semitic.

lots of people give it a shot anyway