Comment by mikeash | Hacker News Reader

Comment by mikeash | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Regarding your question, I won't say that I'm happy or sad, I've pretty much been following this with great fascination not taking either side. I'm very much against state discrimination against homosexuality, but Eich's "crime" in that respect was fairly minor. On the other hand, firing a CEO because he pressed the wrong button and got a buttload of people angry at him is entirely reasonable.

That said, I think this sort of thing does work. It's messy and far from ideal but it does push things in that direction:

"Is the idea that if we villify ideas enough and those that express them, they will eventually go away?"

In short... yes. Most people never change no matter what you do. The only way to really change things is to influence the next generation, so that they form different ("better") opinions than their parents. Children get a lot of their opinions from their parents, but they also get a lot of their opinions from the society they're in. If you force bigots to retreat from the public eye it does work to reduce bigotry in the very long term.

I'm not saying these tactics are a good idea (nor bad, I just make no stand on it at all), but they do work, slowly.

I think this topic -- how do we accelerate the decline in bigotry, esp. in regards to homosexuality -- is a hugely valuable topic to discuss.

I'm of the opinion that these kind of tactics probably aren't as effective as simply what I suggest: "letting the old people die". It's been shown that young people hugely disproportionatly support gay marriage, and support for Prop 8 is declining by a large percentage every year.

I think that when you decide that certain viewpoints or groups are just not allowable at all, all you do is marginalize those groups and push them even further to the extreme. I think you could make a case that Fox News et al would possibly be less extreme if the progressive movement wasn't so vocal about eradicating all potential opposition.

Just my two cents. I'd be really interested to hear other's thoughts on this subject, because I think that bigotry is tied to a whole bunch of other related problems that need solving.

What's driving that change of opinion among the youth, though? These attitudes persisted for generations, and suddenly they're changing. I wouldn't even begin to think about assigning cause versus effect here, but I think it's worth considering that the opinion of the youth is changing because of this sort of action.

Social censure is the most powerful way to adjust norms. You're much more likely to listen to a friend calling you out on something than anyone else. And it sends signals to other people with a similar bent, suggesting that certain behavior is no longer acceptable.

Here's the thing that you're forgetting: the targets of (e.g.) hateful rhetoric feel better when bigots are dismissed from polite society. Some bigots may become more radicalized, but many become demoralized or may even think twice about it (see above). However, when fewer people are allowed to propagate bigoted views in society, society overall is a better place. The whole point is to make society more inclusive. I care less about marginalizing people with abhorrent views than marginalizing different ethnicities, lifestyle choices, and genetic predispositions.

"Wait until they die" suggests a bootstrapping problem: why would children of bigots feel any different unless they had a reason to? If you only wait for bigots to die out instead of marginalizing them, bigotry is normalized over generations. You have to interrupt that cycle.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com