Why I Left White Nationalism | Hacker News Reader

Why I Left White Nationalism

mobile.nytimes.com

89 pointsdiogofranco116 comments

Through many talks with devoted and diverse people there — people who chose to invite me into their dorms and conversations rather than ostracize me — I began to realize the damage I had done.

I suppose this is the key. No group will be convinced by being publicly ostracised or relentlessly attacked; that's going to do nothing but further entrench division. But it's difficult to figure out steps that one can take as an individual to help.

This cannot be stressed enough.

There are plenty of behaviors that people, specially young people going through the "rebellious" phase of their lives, engage for the shock value, for the "I'm the only sane man among sheeps" feeling and that can usually be explained by the lack of maturity and contact with the real world.

The only result that comes with ostracizing these people is to throw them at the arms of the only groups that will accept them with open arms: people seriously sharing the same ideology and that will welcome this person with open arms.

The real solution to ignorance is not to cut the ignorant from the flock but to show them the errors on their ways.

People tend to grow out of these phases and helping them out in that path instead of cutting them and punishing them is a much better way to deal with this problem.

There's very little that makes me as sad as seeing extremist behaviour become the norm on both sides of the aisle. Seeing people not listen to each other and fighting empty devils.

I first saw it with gamergate a while back. As someone very close to the games industry, and in games media back then, I was very interested by the movement (which, at the time anyway, wanted to put a spotlight on corruption in games media)... then after it did some good, it turned into a "hunt all the SJWs" parody of itself and very much became an example of what the alt-right is today.

What happened there was simply people not listening... and instead of listening, sharing whatever story fell in line with the narrative. Twitter makes it easy to block dissenting opinions. Reddit naturally silences disagreement with downvotes. Facebook just natively doesn't show you the stuff you don't like. Social media is a fucking scourge, I swear.

As the movement becomes more and more extreme, it attracts more and more extreme people and the moderates naturally leave (or convert), as they have no way to fight the trend back on a platform that amplifies the majority.

And of course both "sides" in a fight become involved in a cherry-picking fight of who can find the worst of the other's community and showcase it as proof of how relentlessly EVIL the "other side" is. Because, you know, everybody's like that, right?

It's fucking impossible to be a moderate nowadays. This is probably the main reason why I enjoy commenting on HN, where discussion is possible (probably because of details such as upvote counts not showing and a really nice sorting algorithm). Though it has its own issues with community flagging - Take this post for example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12977633 (A moderate article that looked at issues on the left, flagged out despite 100+ upvotes)

Actually, I think this is much more the key: "I never would have begun my own conversations without first experiencing clear and passionate outrage to what I believed from those I interacted with."

Outrage is the only reasonable first response to what happened and must come first. If that opens the doors of discussion like it did here, great. Most likely it won't as most people are not persuaded by argument, though they are susceptible to manipulation by sympathy.

When those people choose hate over everything else, however, they deserve to be ostracized and relentlessly attacked. Hate is NOT acceptable. I'm disgusted by those who suggest otherwise, especially in the name of "understanding" the other side. It not only shows an incredible lack of understanding about the human condition, it encourages the acceptance of that hate as a legitimate part of the political process, and brings into question the morals of the person making the suggestion to acquiesce to hate.

It's true, but it really has to start with an open mind on their end. In my experience, I find that people who have racist beliefs often see differing viewpoints as the enemy - the first breach being simple consideration of a new perspective. That's not a good place to be in terms of personal growth.

Unfortunately, any sort of hate group's views are damaging to society as a whole, and the larger community has to balance understanding and tolerance (with the aim of eventual conversion) with the need to immediately condemn it. I view it as a societal disease that must be curbed.

Sometimes I worry that too much understanding is as bad as none at all. Supremacy of one group of living things over another (including animals vs humans) simply cannot be legitimized to any extent.

    I find that people who have racist beliefs often see differing viewpoints as the enemy - the first breach being simple consideration of a new perspective.

True, but the problem is not limited to racists. I'm in the "moderate" part of the political spectrum, and I find that far too many people on both the left and right have the same behaviors.

I suggest to my left-leaning friends that government should be a "last resort" solution at best, and is frequently actually the problem; to my right-leaning friends I explain the crucial importance of privacy, civil liberties, and equal justice; and in either case the response is frequently incredulous disbelief and contempt for my naivete and/or obvious privilege yada yada yada.

The echo chambers are real, and they are a threat to our civil society.

> Through many talks with devoted and diverse people there — people who chose to invite me into their dorms and conversations rather than ostracize me — I began to realize the damage I had done.

> That kind of persuasion happens in person-to-person interactions and it requires a lot of honest listening on both sides. For me, the conversations that led me to change my views started because I couldn’t understand why anyone would fear me. I thought I was only doing what was right and defending those I loved.

These two quotes kinda resonate with me. I'm no longer on a college campus and can only take an impression from afar. But it seems like these two scenarios are more and more infrequent. It seems like now you must show that you have not been "tainted" by listening to someone with "reprehensible" opinions. This article states that people who didn't convulse at the mere thought of him, but sat down and talked to him are the reason why he drifted from his ideology. Now, it seems like you could be ostracized yourself for even visiting this person in their dorm room.

I think you're drawing too much from the author's experiences when it comes to changing people's minds. Engagement rarely, if ever, changes the opinions of people because people debate to hear how they're right and not how they're wrong. For years I've engaged my parents on the issue of my desire to transition (being that I'm transgender). And every time they respond with a cold shoulder or some mild rebuke. This has been the norm for sixteen years and they're not changing. So why should I engage them or anyone else like them?

Forgive me if I'm getting too personal, but are you looking for tolerance or acceptance?

Because "live and let live" is an old and honored American tradition, and taking this out of the domain of the family, not being able to refuse to bake a gay wedding cake is the antithesis of that tradition.

They're not directly comparable, because it's your parents, then again, you hardly have to go so far as to desire to transition to be given the cold shoulder or anything but a mild rebuke over something else that differs that's fundamental in your nature and that's different between you and your parents (in my case it pertained to simply going to college).

"Because "live and let live" is an old and honored American tradition, and taking this out of the domain of the family, not being able to refuse to bake a gay wedding cake is the antithesis of that tradition."

The problem with that argument is that it means I can force Christians seeking employment to urinate on the Bible as a condition of that employment. So, the law as it stands prevents me from forcing Christians to denigrate themselves for a quick buck. Similarly, I can't deny Christians access to my services as a programmer. So why should a Christian baker be able to deny their services in kind?

Do you see the problem here? Basically, it would lead to an economic apartheid where the evangelical majority in the South can deny services to those who aren't them. These aren't just bakers either but medical doctors, EMTs, and police officers. Can you imagine a gay person dying from kidney cancer being told by the oncologist they're not going to treat them for their cancer until they repent? This has happened in the United States during the AIDS scare of the 80s. Hospices, hospitals, and individual medical staff refused to treat AIDS patients. Is that the kind of "tolerance" you want? Or do you want the law to say "keep your faith at home." Because even when I was an evangelical years ago I knew that the law was for my benefit too. If you think that a complex society like ours can live that way I'm just done with this conversation.

"They're not directly comparable, because it's your parents, then again, you hardly have to go so far as to desire to transition to be given the cold shoulder or anything but a mild rebuke over something else that differs that's fundamental in your nature and that's different between you and your parents (in my case it pertained to simply going to college)."

In college, you're not obliged to a conversation with your fellow students. If they're there to learn and it's not part of the credit requirement to debate you on a topic in the course then how about you take a hint and leave that person alone. I know that's mean of me but being that I went to college and grad school I found there was little time for chitchat and whenever there was any it wasn't about my gender identity. So, I guess I see college as something I didn't worry about challenging anything because my interest was getting a degree to get a good job and not to play faux activist. Because honestly, there's little virtue in trying to convince "the other side" of anything. I'd rather they just get their collective heads out of their butts and realize my humanity isn't conditional. If it's too hard for them to see me as human then well they're gonna have a bad time talking to me (as I might likely mock their dear Lord and Savior).

This has happened in the United States during the AIDS scare of the 80s. Hospices, hospitals, and individual medical staff refused to treat AIDS patients.

Were you, you know, actually around for this "scare"?

It wasn't a "scare", it was a debilitating and universally fatal infectious blood-born disease, which we'd gotten out of the habit of admitting was such a thing, And more than a few healthcare workers contracted it from their patients.

I'm going to call you on this claim of facts of refusal to treat AIDS patients, which I know happened at small scales, dentists included, for not everyone is Florence Nightingale brave, while also pointing out that prior to the development of effective treatments this didn't, you know, actually effect eventual outcomes. And was it widespread enough to be a major thing, enough that people were denied treatment altogether, as opposed to having to get it from someone else?

Going further, are we eventually going to regret according civil rights to a disease? Suppose Ebola had been much more transmissible than it turned out to be (helps when it kills so fast, it'll get really bad if/when it adapts and kills less, and less quickly).

First, you don't have to be alive during something to know about it's history. We have these things called books and there's plenty of people still alive from the early 1980s. In fact, if you want to know I was born in 1980 and I remember that the scare was still present even in my home state of Kansas where I was instructed by my own parents to use toilet covers in public restrooms because I might get AIDS. Yes, son, it was that bad where people were doing idiotic things.

Also, I have gay friends who were teenagers and adults from that time who told me the stories about how doctors refusing to even give antibiotics to infected friends. So, I don't want to hear your bullshit about it being a "blood-born disease" on such matters.

Furthermore, you're dishonest for trying to conflate the disease with the patient. AIDS doesn't mean a doctor shrinks away from treating their patients, nor does Ebola for that matter. If you became a doctor in a general hospital score some nurse tail then you're in the wrong business. Try consulting or taking patients on a per-invite basis (such clinics exist for a reason). On top of all that, you've just proven yourself to be the bigot I expect because you conflate the disease with the patient rather than address my principle points regarding why we have such laws in place for PUBLIC businesses.

So, if you want to address that point I'm game but if you can't admit that freedom of association is not unlimited then we can't discuss anything. So, do you think it's okay for me to force Christians to urinate on the Bible or a figure of Jesus as a requirement in a job interview. Or to pledge their souls to Satan (since I know some Satanists who are business owners believe it or not)? Let's see how far you wanna go down the rabbit hole of apartheid.

  When the most powerful demographic in the United States came together to assert that making America great again meant asserting their supremacy, they were asserting my supremacy.

I find this rhetoric troubling; I know many Trump supporters and none would explain their vote in terms of asserting "supremacy" for their demographic. Given the author's background, I see how he could reach that conclusion, but his assertion stands in opposition to other parts of his article in which he states that engagement is the key to changing minds. I'm not too sure why he thinks that smearing the millions of voters who supported Trump as white supremacists is a positive step toward engaging them in civil discussion.

Following that statement, the author spends the rest of the article explaining how the people asserting supremacy often do not see it as such.

It is an implicit and unwitting reality of the position they are taking. I used to be one of these folks; I couldn't see the harm and hate of my own positions, thanks to the fog of ethnocentrism.

So, the author was in one group and subscribed to the majority opinion there, and then adopted another majority opinion of a new social circle?

Every opinion is the majority opinion of some social circle. That is not the point of the article. The point is that the author has been exposed to both white supremacy and tolerance, is in a position where he can evaluate both of them from an insider's view, and clearly chose tolerance as the morally superior option.

> Every opinion is the majority opinion of some social circle.

But not every opinion is the majority opinion of the social circle that the person is immersed in right now.

> clearly chose tolerance as the morally superior option

Possibly. But also it's possible that the fact that this was a much more socially acceptable opinion played a significant role.

I constantly see this assumption from people who attack left-wing culture. It is a mistake to assume someone supports PC politics out of "virtue signaling" or a desire to be socially accepted. Maybe some people do that, but many don't. Most of the time you won't have proof either way. Don't assume.

It is intellectually lazy to discount the possibility that someone could assess pro-diversity ideas with an open mind and simply find them superior. Regardless of your politics, that's just giving an opposing ideology the respect it deserves.

You don't know if this guy drifted left because of social pressure, and frankly that's a silly and disrespectful thing to assume.

I would make the same point if he migrated from left to right in the similar circumstances. My logic is not based on the nature of the beliefs he expressed; only on a correlation between peer pressure and what he believes in.

Do you believe anyone ever actually takes any position out of genuine conscience?

Absolutes don't exist, and the world isn't black and white - which doesn't mean that everything is the same shade of 50% gray.

he seems to be overly prone to ideology.

"For every woke dude, there are 10 burned out feminists."

I don't know who said this, but it's true for many things.

Ten or hundred people telling someone they're wrong, isn't enough to change what year long indoctrination has done.

Even if you think "I talked to thousands of racists in my life and I just don't want to waste my time to change their minds" you should still do it, because it has an effect, just not for all of the thousand people you talked to.

The reality is that half of the voters chose white supremacy, though saying that makes me a hypocrite.

Wut? People who voted for Obama voted for Trump! Seems like when people, like this guy, get emotional over election results, they throw all logic out of the window.

To you PEOPLE how constantly claim to be so "diverse",why are you so intolerant with divergent opinions? We do respect your right to be stupid! When are you'll leaving?

When those opinions support denying civil rights from minorities like LGBT people then those opinions are inherently wrong. Whether it's civil marriage or respecting trans people when it comes to non-discrimination in the various spheres of public life (employment & public accommodations), these rights shouldn't be a matter of debate but rather the baseline for any discussion. It's not like these rights impede free association in the private sphere.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com