But they are not being discussed, this "final say" position of "ideas should be rejected" only harms the idea of discussion even more.
People should be allowed to be wrong, but above all learn respect.
Of course people are allowed to be wrong. And their individual humanity must be kept in view, no matter what they espouse. This absolutely does not entail that their untrue
beliefs should be respected.
The prospect that "calling out bad behaviour will make changes" is nothing but a fantasy.
I do not mean denunciation of wrongthinkers here. Calling out in this sense isn't the process of tarring individuals, but of making their inhumane ideas clear, and condemning those. Gandhi's
satyagraha was perhaps the most idealistic application of this concept: adhering so completely to the truth, that lies must wither and fail. Patience is the axle of change, not vilification. While I do not share Gandhi's implacable resolve nor his passionate belief in painful endurance, I embrace the base commitment to truth. By clearly rejecting bad ideas, with reason, I do not necessarily hope to eliminate them in the speaker (or at least not in a single swoop). I argue so that anyone observing can see that a contrary position exists, know that debate is allowable, and measure the greater merit. And I do so to ensure that my own position is not dogma, that it incorporates all my best knowledge and is rational and defensible in the face of opposition.
I'm far away from being a "love&peace" person, call me a borderline misanthropic, but fucking hell, I try. I try and try and try to reach people, across all mindsets and beliefs and it is always the same thing "this is the truth, everything else isn't" from all sides. Every single time.
But there
is truth. Sticking with it is exactly the right thing to do. The difficulty, of course, is that myriad people have settled on different premises as being true. The correct response to this is not to proclaim all sides equally confused. It's to find those on the side of truth, bolster their position, and defend it during debate. For instance, it's incumbent upon scientists (and interested laymen) to reiterate the truth of evolution in the face of questioning, again and again as new generations take up the question. Over time, we trust it becomes apparent to the audience of the world that so much evidence can only be rejected by a perverse mind.
On a more fundamental level, I just don't believe the idea that everyone you've ever met is totally inflexible. Or if it's true that you've encountered nothing but committed idealogues, you're an extreme outlier. People can listen, can change...slowly, achingly slowly, with great effort and repeated backsliding. Some of their trajectories end where they began. But others do not. Thoughts, beliefs, personality, prejudices, behavior--all can vary over the long course of a life. They have for me, and I'd be surprised if not for you. This is how there has been notable cultural change through history. (Unless you have a mathematically rigorous evolutionary model for why babies are, for example, leaving the womb less sexist with each generation.)
People can't accept different views, they need to shut it down, silence, combat instead of working it out.
I'm proposing the exact opposite of shutdown and silence. The proponents of racist and sexist views should be encouraged--should be
required--to loudly proclaim exactly what they believe, without euphemism or vagueness. Discussion should be open, not veiled; potent, not weaksauce.
If you can articulate specifically what you mean by "working it out", I may well agree that it's the best course of action.
And now just to piss on my cheerios, the far right actually made this a "weapon" and it already infected everyone. The "left" today unknowingly fell so deep into the far right trap, it has become quite maddening and depressing.
You're subsuming vast swaths of people under the labels "far right" and "left", ignoring the true variety of impulse and ideas that exist within those sets. Isn't this precisely the boxing operation you've railed against as disrespectful?
I hope this allows you to see that such generalizing language is sometimes convenient, even for those people (such as, apparently, the both of us) who believe that individuals should be treated in all their particulars, and with humane estimation.
