Bari, in other articles, has noted the wisdom of talking to people with whom one deeply disagrees. Unfortunately she draws the line at Trump talking to antisemites.
In this respect, Bari seems afflicted by the same malaise that has been corroding liberalism for the past 30 years: the view that racism, sexism, antisemitism, etc are such …
Bari, in other articles, has noted the wisdom of talking to people with whom one deeply disagrees. Unfortunately she draws the line at Trump talking to antisemites.
In this respect, Bari seems afflicted by the same malaise that has been corroding liberalism for the past 30 years: the view that racism, sexism, antisemitism, etc are such reprehensible ideas that the people who hold them must be incorrigible. As such, they must be made pariahs, censored, de-platformed, shadow banned, etc.. Moreover, to meet with or talk with these folks isn’t just a waste of time, it’s actually dangerous because it would “legitimize” or “mainstream” their views, or give these views “oxygen” and allow them to spread.
First of all, those arguments are laziness, masquerating as virtue. Calling someone a racist is easy but it doesn’t make them stop being racist. Preventing somebody from speaking their bad ideas doesn’t make them stop believing those bad ideas. Second of all, shaming and shunning these people actually allows their numbers to grow. Obviously, these people and their ideas do not disappear when we de-platform them or suspend them from Twitter. They go elsewhere, and they gather an audience, who, unfortunately are now deprived of the benefit of any counter arguments or better ideas. And because of our unwillingness to engage, their numbers are not diminished, they grow unchecked.
As counterintuitive as it seems, Bari should have stood up for Donald Trump‘s meeting with those two lunatics (Kanye and Fuentes). Not because she believes what they believe, but because she believes that talking with people with whom you disagree is is the only way to counter their ideas, and the spread of their ideas.
The only way to fight bigotry is to actually and authentically engage with the person whose ideas you detest. And if they’re a public person it needs to be public engagement. A real conversation about what they think and why they think it.
And if you’re tempted to claim that approach is a waste of time, because these people are incorrigible, please consider the case of of Daryl Davis, a black blues musician who spent 30 years meeting with - and befriending- members of the Ku Klux Klan - to astonishing effect. His courage changed minds and indeed countless lives. We should all strive to be so brave.
I thought the same thing when she mentioned this person Nick Fuentes had terrible views, but then said she didn't want to quote him on any of them. Why not just say what they are?
Bari, in other articles, has noted the wisdom of talking to people with whom one deeply disagrees. Unfortunately she draws the line at Trump talking to antisemites.
In this respect, Bari seems afflicted by the same malaise that has been corroding liberalism for the past 30 years: the view that racism, sexism, antisemitism, etc are such reprehensible ideas that the people who hold them must be incorrigible. As such, they must be made pariahs, censored, de-platformed, shadow banned, etc.. Moreover, to meet with or talk with these folks isn’t just a waste of time, it’s actually dangerous because it would “legitimize” or “mainstream” their views, or give these views “oxygen” and allow them to spread.
First of all, those arguments are laziness, masquerating as virtue. Calling someone a racist is easy but it doesn’t make them stop being racist. Preventing somebody from speaking their bad ideas doesn’t make them stop believing those bad ideas. Second of all, shaming and shunning these people actually allows their numbers to grow. Obviously, these people and their ideas do not disappear when we de-platform them or suspend them from Twitter. They go elsewhere, and they gather an audience, who, unfortunately are now deprived of the benefit of any counter arguments or better ideas. And because of our unwillingness to engage, their numbers are not diminished, they grow unchecked.
As counterintuitive as it seems, Bari should have stood up for Donald Trump‘s meeting with those two lunatics (Kanye and Fuentes). Not because she believes what they believe, but because she believes that talking with people with whom you disagree is is the only way to counter their ideas, and the spread of their ideas.
The only way to fight bigotry is to actually and authentically engage with the person whose ideas you detest. And if they’re a public person it needs to be public engagement. A real conversation about what they think and why they think it.
And if you’re tempted to claim that approach is a waste of time, because these people are incorrigible, please consider the case of of Daryl Davis, a black blues musician who spent 30 years meeting with - and befriending- members of the Ku Klux Klan - to astonishing effect. His courage changed minds and indeed countless lives. We should all strive to be so brave.
I thought the same thing when she mentioned this person Nick Fuentes had terrible views, but then said she didn't want to quote him on any of them. Why not just say what they are?