Hacker News Reader

How do you take into account nuances. When President Obama was riding shotgun on the ACA passage he disregarded the opinions of the opposition with phrases like "No one has shown me any other alternatives," and "I won." When the ACA was finally passed, the opposition pointed out the flaws that are now occurring. Where in this entire process, even from the start was there any engagement.

I am actively asking what engagement programs or outreaches have been attempted. The only thing I can point to is the ever changing nature of our nation's acceptance of gays and lesbian marriage. Senator's Clinton and Obama both were against it until after the populace pointed out how much they were for it.

A thought experiment: Minimum wage. It is a horrible program that directly hurts the poor and downtrodden; it was first imposed by actual racists to keep blacks out of work[1], [2]. Now, based on its origination, is it a racist program to keep poor and downtrodden out of work or is it a racist program to eliminate the minimum wage? Who is the arbiter of this decision?

[1] "Colored labor is being sought to demoralize wage rates." American Federation of Labor President William Green

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis%E2%80%93Bacon_Act

I'm not convinced by this, partly because labelling people as racist is what we've been doing and failing. And as the other commentor says, your paragraphs are contradictory.

I keep meaning to write a longer thing about this, but we're running into the politics of loyalty and belonging. That's how you get people taking pride in their racism; they've chosen who they have solidarity with, who they consider their ingroup, and if racism is part of that group deliniation they're going to shout it from the rooftops.

(Given the way group identity works through churches in parts of America, the best approach might be to keep asking people who self-describe as Christian what they think of Trump's behaviour towards women..)

I don't understand this:

> I;m not talking about changing views. I'm talking about making them aware of their views. They don't think they are racists. They don't think they are homophobic. … Only once they understand that their views are describable in such terms can we ever then hope to change those views.

followed by this:

> We all assume that convincing someone that they are racist will cause them to change. That denies the reality that someone can be a proud racist, a proud homophobe. I've got a pile of emails coming in from elderly family members who are very very proud of their anti-muslim and anti-gay views.

The latter quote seems to be directly arguing against the point of view espoused in the former.

It's a two-step process. First you must make them understand that they are racist. That's requires confrontation. Once they acknowledge that truth, that reasonable people believe them racist, then you can go about convincing them that racism is a bad thing. The first statement is about people who do not believe themselves racist. The second about those who do and are proud of being so. You confront the former, negotiating only with the later.