Fitzgibbon: ALP could split in the next 20 years

[Father Jack]

Do you think calling them bigots publicly helps the SSM vote get over the line?

I don't care, it's a simple statement of fact.

 

[Patrick Bullet]

I don't care, it's a simple statement of fact.

That is fine and all but an actual progressive wants to see progress and progress requires that you bring people with you. Perhaps you are a fake progressive

 

[Johnny Bananas]

If you want to change people's minds, then yes.

I hold absolutely no hope whatsoever of changing the mind of someone like Blair Cottrell. So I don't care about protecting his feelings. I do hold some hope of changing the minds of regular people who simply havent given the issue much thought, or have never considered things from a certain point of view. That's why I'm gentle with those people, at least until they start hurling insults (and sometimes even then).

But if I don't say anything about behaviour or speech that is inappropriate or hurtful to groups that suffer discrimination, how are people to learn that it isn't a good thing to do? The standard you walk past is the standard you accept, and I generally am not accepting of racism, sexism, homophobia or transphobia when it occurs in my presence. I myself don't always make the right choice of words or behaviour, since I'm only human, but I am open to being corrected, preferably gently. And so I'd do the same to others, particularly those I know, and I'm smart enough to realise that doing it gently and with empathy is better than shouting over people.

So why should I refrain from saying anything at all? Will people just wake up one day with a more tolerant position? Or is it purely to not upset people? Because that sounds an awful lot like political correctness.

 

[Patrick Bullet]

I hold absolutely no hope whatsoever of changing the mind of someone like Blair Cottrell. So I don't care about protecting his feelings. I do hold some hope of changing the minds of regular people who simply havent given the issue much thought, or have never considered things from a certain point of view. That's why I'm gentle with those people, at least until they start hurling insults (and sometimes even then).

But if I don't say anything about behaviour or speech that is inappropriate or hurtful to groups that suffer discrimination, how are people to learn that it isn't a good thing to do? The standard you walk past is the standard you accept, and I generally am not accepting of racism, sexism, homophobia or transphobia when it occurs in my presence. I myself don't always make the right choice of words or behaviour, since I'm only human, but I am open to being corrected, preferably gently. And so I'd do the same to others, particularly those I know, and I'm smart enough to realise that doing it gently and with empathy is better than shouting over people.

So why should I refrain from saying anything at all? Will people just wake up one day with a more tolerant position? Or is it purely not to not upset people? Because that sounds an awful lot like political correctness.

These are all great questions JB. My response to them is that it doesn't matter what is right or fair; what matters is what works. Here, I've suggested having a conversation where you ask lots of questions and listen intently to those you disagree with. Just by doing that (i.e. without even telling them directly what you think about the issue but instead asking the right questions that make them think), you'll have more success in changing people's minds.

It's not about not upsetting people; that's an avoidance goal which is impossible to achieve anyway. It's about doing what it takes to get people on board with you. I agree that some people are so far gone that it will be difficult to bring them back (eg Cottrell) but there are lower hanging fruit out there (e.g. most of the 30-whatever percent who voted no). Look up Daryl Davis and the KKK for the hard mode version of this.

 

[Chief]

You understand that people who aren't in a conversation can still be influenced by that conversation.

Oh THEIR minds - as in the creepy alt-right race-baiters and the avowed Nazis.

 

[Patrick Bullet]

Oh THEIR minds - as in the creepy alt-right race-baiters and the avowed Nazis.

What?

 

[Chief]

What?

Huh?

 

[Johnny Bananas]

These are all great questions JB. My response to them is that it doesn't matter what is right or fair; what matters is what works.

If you're okay with having that on your conscience, sure. If someone's being attacked and your options are either to step in or run away (no possibility of getting help), and you're not a strong person, hold no weapons and have no martial arts training, it makes sense for you in the moment to not get involved and risk serious injury to yourself. But are you willing to have that on your conscience? I use the same logic if I choose to step in when I see or hear bigotry. It may not win someone over to my side, but I'm unwilling to walk past it. Of course, doing so gently is better in many circumstances, but some require firmness. I agree that plenty of social progressives have had very poor judgement in that regard.

The example I gave above is the experience that caused Stieg Larsson to write The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. I seem to recall him saying he wrote it as a sort of penance for the guilt he felt about not stepping in to help a woman who was being sexually assaulted.

Here, I've suggested having a conversation where you ask lots of questions and listen intently to those you disagree with. Just by doing that (i.e. without even telling them directly what you think about the issue but instead asking the right questions that make them think), you'll have more success in changing people's minds.

And if people are unwilling to think? If they're unwilling to show empathy? Or if they do think, if they're simply unwilling to accept they could have done anything wrong?

Here's the thing, I may not be able to reach that person and change their mind, because some people simply don't want to, and that's their right. But I can change the minds of third parties who are observing the situation. Calling out a situation as being wrong or discriminatory can do that, it outlines what racist/sexist/homophobic behaviour or speech looks like.

Look up Daryl Davis and the KKK for the hard mode version of this.

Not everyone has the fortitude to be like Darryl Davis. He's noteworthy because he has a very high level of patience and perseverance. But a lot of people suffer from discrimination, and a lot of people empathise with those who suffer. It'd be good if more of them took the approach of seeking to influence people more gently, but I don't fault them for not being Darryl Davis.

 

[wahooo]

Yes Johnny Bananas the discrimination faced by the marginalised is worse than being called a bigot but two wrongs won't make a right. In a democracy, to get change to happen, you need to bring people on board with you. Labelling people who aren't on board with you "bigots" or "problematic" will most likely have the opposite effect to what you want (assuming you actually want the change to happen). Yes you get to feel righteous when you "call people out" (because they apparently need to be called out, for some unknown reason), but you won't get the votes you actually need.

Good conversation is king. If people don't agree with your position on something, ask them why and actually listen to their responses and try to understand them. The sooner the progressive activitists learn this, the faster we can (a) get the changes that are better for society and (b) understand why they were necessary. Until then "if you have a go, you'll get a go" strategy will probably keep on working.

It's important to call out bad behaviours, to focus on the actions not the person. We cannot continue to live in a world where a racist joke gets dismissed as a bit of fun or sexism dismissed as boys will be boys. We need to call out bad behaviours and actions.

 

[spinynorman]

Not really - democracy has a way of sorting through the bullshit.

I have faith that Labor will regain the centre at some point - the country needs both views represented over a period of time for balance.

Labor supports an industrial relations system that criminalises the right to strike, barring a few exceptional circumstances. It supports the indefinite detention of asylum seekers without charge or conviction. It supports greenhouse emission targets well short of what climate scientists generally believe is required to adequately address climate change. Labor supports returning the government budget to surplus as a matter of importance and economic urgency. Labor has given continued support for US foreign policy. Labor has received large donations from large multinational corporations such as ANZ, Coca Cola Amatil, Price Waterhouse Coopers and Woodside Energy. Labor supports the retention of regressive taxes such as the GST. Labor state governments have privatised multiple government assets, with Andrews (the most left-wing premier in the country) for example privatising the Port of Melbourne and large swathes of public housing. Under their last Federal Government, Labor cut welfare payments for single mothers.

What more does Labor need to do to "regain the centre"?

 

[Father Jack]

That is fine and all but an actual progressive wants to see progress and progress requires that you bring people with you. Perhaps you are a fake progressive

I'm not sure how being pro-fact makes one a fake progressive, but you do you.

 

[Patrick Bullet]

If you're okay with having that on your conscience, sure. If someone's being attacked and your options are either to step in or run away (no possibility of getting help), and you're not a strong person, hold no weapons and have no martial arts training, it makes sense for you in the moment to not get involved and risk serious injury to yourself. But are you willing to have that on your conscience? I use the same logic if I choose to step in when I see or hear bigotry. It may not win someone over to my side, but I'm unwilling to walk past it. Of course, doing so gently is better in many circumstances, but some require firmness. I agree that plenty of social progressives have had very poor judgement in that regard.

The example I gave above is the experience that caused Stieg Larsson to write The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. I seem to recall him saying he wrote it as a sort of penance for the guilt he felt about not stepping in to help a woman who was being sexually assaulted.

I think we might be thinking about 'calling something out' in different terms. The post that caught my attention was the one where you said there were only two reasons for someone to vote no to SSM (bigotry and blind faith in religion, IIRC). I am not sure whether you were being facetious, flippant, of if it's a sincerely held view. Whatever it is, I see that kind of 'calling out' as extremely counterproductive. That is quite different from acting in response to a specific incident of an assault or overt discrimination. Let's keep that second type of incident separate for now as I think we're largely in agreement on that one.

Back to calling out bigots publicly, or labelling a group of people bigoted based on a behaviour like voting in a particular direction, which is where I think our opinions diverge. I've personally never seen anybody change their mind as a result of being called a bigot or, say, a mindless religious fool (I am paraphrasing the earlier post here). Maybe it's fine to give up on the no voters. Perhaps those folks were never destined to change their minds. That's fine, but then I wonder if you have given up on them, why respond to them at all? Why call them out? Perhaps you see view it as a public service - e.g., a signal to the world "Hey everyone, beware, person X is [or group X are] a bigot/religious fool"? Or is there some other reason?
(edit - maybe read on before replying to the above)

And if people are unwilling to think? If they're unwilling to show empathy? Or if they do think, if they're simply unwilling to accept they could have done anything wrong?
Here's the thing, I may not be able to reach that person and change their mind, because some people simply don't want to, and that's their right. But I can change the minds of third parties who are observing the situation. Calling out a situation as being wrong or discriminatory can do that, it outlines what racist/sexist/homophobic behaviour or speech looks like.

Okay, so I think this implies that you subscribe to the 'signal' argument. I personally cannot recall a situation where someone had their mind changed from witnessing someone else (or a group of people) being labeled a bigot or a mindless religious fool. On the other hand, I have seen people who might be on the fence about an issue react quite negatively to grandstanding and/or sanctimonious vitue-signalling behaviours. The thing is, to the not yet converted, what looks like a simple call out to a progressive can come across as sanctimony, especially when words like "bigot" are being thrown around. Do you have examples where you've seen people change their minds because you've labeled a person a bigot? I'm genuinely curious and would like to hear the story.
(Calling people like that Tarrant dickhead a bigot has no utility whatsoever - anyone who didn't already know this about him by now needs their head examined.)

All I am suggesting here is that, if you want change to actually happen, there are bound to be better ways of achieving that than labelling people (especially publicly), and especially rather large groups of people, such as the 'no to SSM' voters. wahooo made a very nice point a few posts above about making the distinction between the behaviour and the person. That's a great start. I'd say go further, and try to understand their motivations.

E.g., JK Rowling is in the spotlight at the moment for 'bigotry' against trans people. Do you have any idea why she holds those views? I was curious and so I did some reading on her story, and now I think I understand where she is coming from. I don't agree with her conclusion, but I do understand that she's not just someone who decided to be mean to trans people for the sake of it. I'd be happy to talk with her about it; too bad I wouldn't get the chance.

Not everyone has the fortitude to be like Darryl Davis. He's noteworthy because he has a very high level of patience and perseverance. But a lot of people suffer from discrimination, and a lot of people empathise with those who suffer. It'd be good if more of them took the approach of seeking to influence people more gently, but I don't fault them for not being Darryl Davis.

Yep, as I mentioned, that guy was playing in hard mode. I agree that it's not anyone's responsibility to play at that level. I don't think, however, that the no-to-ssm voters are at the same level as people in the KKK though, and so you have plenty of easier targets. I also worry that the progressive activists are too quick to assume people's minds can't be changed. They see a simple "no" vote as akin to indisputable proof that one is an irredeemable bigot. That is very sad IMO - (nearly) everyone should have the chance at redemption.

Look, at the end of the day, I think we both want many of the same things to happen. I want to see the end of this horrible coalition government and the end of Trumpism. I just don't think we get there by calling people out. Maybe I'm wrong about that but most real changes in liberal societies (and at a smaller level, groups and organisations) have come about from persuasion, not from grandstanding and pointing out all the bad people.

 

[Patrick Bullet]

It's important to call out bad behaviours, to focus on the actions not the person. We cannot continue to live in a world where a racist joke gets dismissed as a bit of fun or sexism dismissed as boys will be boys. We need to call out bad behaviours and actions.

Yes I agree - the distinction is hugely important when it comes to influencing people. People can come back quickly from making a bad racist joke. It's much harder to come back from being called "a racist".

 

[Patrick Bullet]

I'm not sure how being pro-fact makes one a fake progressive, but you do you.

How do you know all the people who voted no to SSM hold bigoted views? Have you spoken to all of them? Do you have some kind of infallible 'bigotry' test?

For a progressive, you have funny idea about what a 'fact' is.

 

[Father Jack]

How do you know all the people who voted no to SSM hold bigoted views? Have you spoken to all of them? Do you have some kind of infallible 'bigotry' test?

For a progressive, you have funny idea about what a 'fact' is.

Okay, I'll allow that if you are against SSM because you are against all forms of marriage, then that's not a bigoted position. If, however, the only form of marriage you are against is SSM, then I really fail to see how holding that view is anything other than bigoted. How do you see it as being a 'non-bigoted' position?

 

[Johnny Bananas]

I think we might be thinking about 'calling something out' in different terms. The post that caught my attention was the one where you said there were only two reasons for someone to vote no to SSM (bigotry and blind faith in religion, IIRC).

No, that's a mischaracterisation. I asked if there was another reason besides bigotry and religious dogma, because none were coming to mind for me.

I don't instantly react with disgust when I encounter a bigot or someone who unquestioningly follows religious dogma. I don't regard them as being the smartest people because they aren't being logical, but I usually have some level of sympathy because they've likely been raised in a background where that's the norm, whereas I had the good fortune not to be. So I limit how much I judge them because of that, even if I don't like their views in any way.

I was told that a third reason might be preserving tradition. For those who want to preserve something I see as wrong, simply for the sake of tradition, I judge them fully. There are a lot of traditions that we did well to get rid of, such as women being forced to retire once they got married. If there's no logical reason for it and it's harming people, there is no point in preserving tradition in my view.

Whatever it is, I see that kind of 'calling out' as extremely counterproductive.

Why? Should I be protecting the feelings of bigots, or third parties if they don't like seeing bigotry described for what it is?

That is quite different from acting in response to a specific incident of an assault or overt discrimination.

Where's the boundary for you with overt discrimination? Should I not say something if someone makes a racial joke in my presence?

Back to calling out bigots publicly, or labelling a group of people bigoted based on a behaviour like voting in a particular direction, which is where I think our opinions diverge.

Do you believe anyone who voted No on the 1967 referendum on Aboriginal people was not bigoted? Did they have perfectly innocent reasons for Aboriginal people not being counted as human beings in the census and federal law?

I've already acknowledged there are reasons other than outright bigotry to oppose SSM. I just don't regard those reasons as being any better.

I've personally never seen anybody change their mind as a result of being called a bigot or, say, a mindless religious fool (I am paraphrasing the earlier post here).

You're going beyond paraphrasing, you're inventing a straw man. I've always believed, at least in real life, of calling out the behaviour or speech rather than the person, at least up to the point they show intransigence and start hurling insults. The internet is a very different place, where I believe it's incredibly difficult to change anyone's mind.

Maybe it's fine to give up on the no voters. Perhaps those folks were never destined to change their minds. That's fine, but then I wonder if you have given up on them, why respond to them at all? Why call them out? Perhaps you see view it as a public service - e.g., a signal to the world "Hey everyone, beware, person X is [or group X are] a bigot/religious fool"? Or is there some other reason?
(edit - maybe read on before replying to the above)

I've told you why. Of course it's a signal. The standard you walk past is the standard you accept, and I generally don't accept bigotry to go unchallenged unless I recognise that third parties involved in the conversation know it for what it is.

I personally cannot recall a situation where someone had their mind changed from witnessing someone else (or a group of people) being labeled a bigot or a mindless religious fool.

Not only do I fail to see how this applies to me in any way, I would suggest there are a lot of experiences beyond those you can personally recall. If nobody changes their mind from racist behaviour or speech (for example) being called out as racist, why are people so adamant about distancing themselves from racism? Why would they care if no third party is going to judge them (or their actions) for it?

On the other hand, I have seen people who might be on the fence about an issue react quite negatively to grandstanding and/or sanctimonious vitue-signalling behaviours.

Nobody likes sanctimony or egocentrism, myself included. For the people who see any description of anything at all as racist to be sanctimonious, I can't help them. They may not be as actively harmful as Blair Cottrell and chums, but they're about as intransigent. I only concern myself with those who can be won over.

The thing is, to the not yet converted, what looks like a simple call out to a progressive can come across as sanctimony, especially when words like "bigot" are being thrown around.

All of them? At all times? Does the word bigot automatically trigger these feelings of witnessing sanctimony in the not yet converted?

Do you have examples where you've seen people change their minds because you've labeled a person a bigot?

I very rarely call people bigots, especially in the real world. I can recall a couple of occasions of pointing out political dog whistling over immigration or Muslims to people who previously didn't recognise it. Some changed their minds, some did not. Nobody accused me of being sanctimonious over it. I also pointed out to a friend of mine that her boss' treatment of her seemed like sexism. She hadn't previously thought of it as such, but that seemed to open her eyes to it.

Online, it's hard to say whether you've changed anyone's mind. I recall engaging in a debate over same sex marriage on Facebook against a devout Catholic, and suggested his beliefs came from simply regurgitating the dogma of the religion he was born into. And I believe I gained a like from someone who hadn't expressed strong feelings on SSM, but it's possible they did strongly support it and just hadn't given voice to it publicly.

(Calling people like that Tarrant dickhead a bigot has no utility whatsoever - anyone who didn't already know this about him by now needs their head examined.)

I can tell you there were plenty of people online who didn't condemn his actions. Most of them didn't express overt support (gee, I wonder why if nobody else's mind would be changed if their bigotry was called out?), but they displayed a heartless indifference to the victims, and condemned Jacinda Ardern for showing support and solidarity with the Muslim community in the aftermath.

All I am suggesting here is that, if you want change to actually happen, there are bound to be better ways of achieving that than labelling people (especially publicly), and especially rather large groups of people, such as the 'no to SSM' voters. wahooo made a very nice point a few posts above about making the distinction between the behaviour and the person. That's a great start. I'd say go further, and try to understand their motivations.

It really feels like your entire post is one giant straw man. Where did I say anything that conflicts with what wahooo said?

E.g., JK Rowling is in the spotlight at the moment for 'bigotry' against trans people. Do you have any idea why she holds those views? I was curious and so I did some reading on her story, and now I think I understand where she is coming from. I don't agree with her conclusion, but I do understand that she's not just someone who decided to be mean to trans people for the sake of it. I'd be happy to talk with her about it; too bad I wouldn't get the chance.

Do you actually think all bigots are being mean to women/gays/other races just for the sake of it? Rowling denies the identity of trans people, does not accept them as equals, refuses to accommodate them in her choice of language and wears this stance on her sleeve. I read her reasoning and I found it unconvincing. She's entitled to her views, and everyone else is entitled to criticise her for them.

I also worry that the progressive activists are too quick to assume people's minds can't be changed. They see a simple "no" vote as akin to indisputable proof that one is an irredeemable bigot.

How many "progressive activists" have you spoken to on the matter to form this worry?

Look, at the end of the day, I think we both want many of the same things to happen. I want to see the end of this horrible coalition government and the end of Trumpism.

I honestly don't care that much about who is in government in Australia. Labor won't enact most of the policies I want either. I certainly would have preferred Shorten, but besides my personal disdain for Scummo, i don't see any compelling reason to prefer the creature Albo has become. Since they've dropped Shorten's plans to end the franking credits rort, I'm yet to see a policy of theirs that I think will create real positive change.

As for Trumpism, I barely care what happens in America. Biden is almost as poor a candidate as Trump, but at least he might be slightly better to asylum seekers and won't inflame tensions over BLM protests as much. It hardly affects my life, however.

I just don't think we get there by calling people out. Maybe I'm wrong about that but most real changes in liberal societies (and at a smaller level, groups and organisations) have come about from persuasion, not from grandstanding and pointing out all the bad people.

What's your evidence for this?

 

[wahooo]

I've just never understood why people from the 'words don't hurt' camp get upset when someone calls them a racist or a sexist. If words don't hurt they should be big enough and tough enough to cop the label on the chin. These days it's viewed as more evil to call someone racist than it actually is to be racist.

 

[Caesar]

These days it's viewed as more evil to call someone racist than it actually is to be racist.

...no it’s not?

 

[wahooo]

...no it’s not?

Did you miss the last few pages of this thread and the melt around the usage of labels like racist?

 

[Caesar]

Did you miss the last few pages of this thread and the melt around the usage of labels like racist?

Did you miss the fact that idiots on a forum are not representative of reality?

Here's a quick litmus test - go call one of your colleagues racist. Then go call one of your other colleagues a racist term. See which one gets you the boot quicker.

 

[Kram]

This whole board is just a laugh riot, so much absolute crap gets posted on here.

 

[Taylor]

Okay, I'll allow that if you are against SSM because you are against all forms of marriage, then that's not a bigoted position. If, however, the only form of marriage you are against is SSM, then I really fail to see how holding that view is anything other than bigoted. How do you see it as being a 'non-bigoted' position?

It would be bigoted to discount the beliefs and views of those who live differently, so they get their opinion. That applies to both sides.

My advice to conservatives would be that the government has no place dictating what clear minded consenting adults do with each other, it has no place deciding what constitutes a union between these people. Churches, Mosques etc can decide for themselves what unions they endorse.

And I don't particularly care if people want to join in unions with multiple people either.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Did you miss the last few pages of this thread and the melt around the usage of labels like racist?

Don't mind him, he's more concerned with correcting others than understanding context.

 

[NSWCROW]

I've just never understood why people from the 'words don't hurt' camp get upset when someone calls them a racist or a sexist. If words don't hurt they should be big enough and tough enough to cop the label on the chin. These days it's viewed as more evil to call someone racist than it actually is to be racist.

Only to the professional gaslighters on the right

 

[Norwegian Blue]

Okay, I'll allow that if you are against SSM because you are against all forms of marriage, then that's not a bigoted position. If, however, the only form of marriage you are against is SSM, then I really fail to see how holding that view is anything other than bigoted. How do you see it as being a 'non-bigoted' position?

You could, for example, be a respecter of tradition, and see SSM as too radical a change in an institution that's lasted for thousands of years. Here's a non-bigoted speaker opposing SSM:

"On the issue of marriage I think the reality is there is a cultural, religious, historical view around that which we have to respect. The party’s position is very clear that this is an institution that is between a man and a woman.”

Guess who?

Plenty of people held similar views.