I don't understand.

I am challenging your proof surrogate

Which part do you doubt?

Depends. If you're talking about racist people who hate other races because their daddy does and that's that, then good luck. If you mean racist people who you think support systematic racism, but are then shown that something they support like voter ID's really isn't necessary and amounts to a political play on their fears, then yes. That happens all the time with people who actually don't hate other races. Many can be convinced. I fear you get the two mixed up, especially when someone disagrees with you about what you consider to be racist.

... because I was banned from posting in politics.

I don't think I was ever racist, but if I was I no longer am. If this transformation did occur I would give part of the credit for this change to the politics and PU communities.

I post in PU (and used to post in politics) even though a few posters tilted the hell out of me for calling me racist because I wanted to share my perspective and more importantly learn the perspective of others. I don't think I have added to much to P or PU, but I know I have learned a lot and actually changed my views on a few topics.

I lol'd

About prejudice and exposure:

Specifically: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/19584948/

In general: Google "exposure reduces prejudice".

Motivational interviewing wiki: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motiv...l_interviewing

I'll make it simple: you're not a racist unless you actively don't like some certain race. Simply supporting racist laws for no reason other than that you don't realize they're racist doesn't a racist make imo.

I would be very surprised to hear of a racist who reads something and says to himself, "Oh, my illogical hatred of group x has no basis in reality. I get it now! I will now no longer hate x for no apparent reason."

Maybe I'll be surprised when I read dib's links, but I highly doubt it.

Edit

Nope, nothing so far

Do you see how, "All members of X group do/believe Y" would be harder to maintain if you were presented with Xs who didn't fit that description (exposure)? Do you see how creating dissonance between one's beliefs and one's actions could create an opportunity for change talk (MI)?

Sure, but what does that have to do with posts on an Internet forum?

Ahh, so you're of the opinion that nothing learned about human behavior that applies IRL can be applied ITF?

Anais would have to accept that his behavior and what can be learned about it counts on the internet to extend the same reality to others. As long as it's not serious on the internet (unless he or one of 'the gang'says so)it is a one-way relationship of inequity.

Why have racial attitudes (and attitudes toward lgbt people) changed so much over the past decades? The vast majority of people held bigoted views on race 5 decades ago, and on homosexuality less than a decade ago.

This fundamental societal change didn't come about because of aggressively shaming perceived racists, after all most people were racist. It came about because of calm rational talking to. MLK was the master of this. Do you really think that if the gay and civil rights movements had been extremely aggressive they would have had nearly the success they did? Civil rights marchers were the calm normal ones while police using fire hoses and racists beating them down were the brutes. Society saw this and changed.

No, I'm of the opinion that the exposure that does or doesn't happen on a forum is different than the type of exposure your link was talking about.

Also lol at the therapy one. This forum isn't some racist rehab support group.

Anais once again lording over what the forum is and isn't to the detriment of human communication. Remember he is part of a group that declares whoever they want to be a racist and and claim infallibility when doing so. Total amateurs.

Clearly. But I'd contest the similarity is close enough that efficacy, while diminished, would still exist to some extent. But maybe not.

These tactics are nothing more than communication techniques. It's not magic that relies on a therapist's office to be effective.

As an example, and probably a biased one because I've met the guy, when Mat said something and Bryce pointed out that it was hetero-normative, I truly believe Mat took some time out to do a bit of thinking on his views.

But I don't really think Mat is bigoted in the way we are talking about bigots. I don't think he ever hated the gays, but I do think that exposure was beneficial to his future attitudes and behaviors.

It seems too easy on the Internet for people who don't know or care about strangers with which they interact to completely depersonalize anyone whose reality conflicts with their own. I feel that would likely make any efficacy of the noted effect non-existent.

No research to back it up, of course, hence the use of "I feel".

Yeah, maybe. But this ain't, as you say, a therapist's office.

The conversation, according to the poster-C types, is this...

Poster-A: <possible racist dog-whistle>
Poster-B: Poster-A is a racist.
Poster-C: <whine> Those Poster-Bs are always 'throwing poo' and keeping us from doing our 'therapy' to 'convert' the Poster-As <whine>.

Leaving aside this fecal fixation of our Poster-Cs... what exactly are they asking the rest of us to do (or not to do), and why should the rest of us care?

I keep asking this question... and so far I'm getting only silence.

Why does shame trolly whine a lot about whiners that only exist in his imagination and mirror? His lack of argument is so distinct he is resorting to complaining about straw-whining.

Because none of you seem to care when you're wrong, and many of use think it is all too often, like most of the time from what I can see. We think if you did this IRL you'd suffer many a beer bottle crashing over your head, and the fact you get off on shaming practically everyone you disagree with politically on the internet does little or no good, is distracting and pretty damn cowardly.

This whole 'wrong' thingee ties into the 'secret inner heart' crap. Intolerant isn't something people 'are', intolerance is something people can 'do'. In the context of an interwebs forum, what a person 'does' is what they post. No need to grok any 'secret inner heart'.

So, just call those folks out. Post something like "show your work, what did X post that has an intolerant component". Don't start whining and intentionally derail the conversation by spouting crap about "yelling and screaming", etc.

Interwebs != IRL. Nobody IRL would tolerate all this whining about "meanies" without ever discussing the underlying issues.

That's not what's happening. People are trying to discuss what they disagree about, and are confronted with derailing by whining about "meanies", etc.

Derailing the conversation by whining about "meanies" is what is cowardly.

I'm constantly flipping back and forth on if you and some others in here really mean well.

When I feel like being productive and/or persuasive with Xists, I take a quasi-MI line. When I feel like instigating or being provocative, I do so without deluding myself with false pretenses.

I think many on your team call people a racist and believe they're being productive somehow when, in actuality, they're just being provocative for provocative's sake. Or they're just getting off by "throwing poo" or w/e. Which is fine I guess, to each his own, but it does kinda bother me.

If it looks like a whiny shaming mocker and acts like a whiny shaming mocker that is never wrong and even mocks the notion with clever speech, you know they mean to shame and mock well.

Look at all the energy wasted whining about imaginary whiners, framing the issue to put the blame on somebody else and avoid any responsibility.

What response do you want?

If 'we' think someone is wrong 'we' point it out and say why, if 'they' disagree then sometimes 'they' (and 'we') will consider why and progress will get made. Sometimes 'we' will find we didn't disagree as much as misunderstood each other. Very rarely people will even admit this has happened but admission is less important.

'caring' is more difficult but most people care.

For example you claiming 'intolerance isn't something people are but something they do' is so obviously wrong or misunderstood that some of us will keep on about it. We're intolerant that way.