sickening....

[Ghostvirus]

This thread has become a chore to read. My god some of you are writing books man!!

 

[JewishHobbit]

What surprises me most about Holocaust deniers is that despite their denial of it, they think about it an awful lot. Honestly, I know about what happened and it was horrible and all, but unless a conversation like this, or a movie about it comes on (and I'm not even talking about the standard WWII fare, it has to be about the Holocaust directly), I just don't even think about it. Plainly put, I essentially forget about it for most of the time. I have my own life to live, but Holocaust deniers seem to devote much of their time to something they don't even believe happened.

It's confounding.

I've noticed this with a lot of Agnostics and Athiests. They say they don't believe in God, yet, everything that happens they bring up how either God's at fault or this is why God doesn't exist.

It confuses me.

 

[RdeemingRainbow]

Not knowing something isn't nearly as dangerous as bigotry is.

Bigotry stems from lack of knowledge, among other things. Ignorance breeds bigotry.

My point was that the people who have this belief have developed it based on their own bigotry. The two things are intertwined in such a way that there's no way to separate them least of which by showing them pictures of dead jews and explaining that the holocaust was real.

But there ARE people who, if confronted on their false beliefs, will start to question those things. I know a few ex-skinheads (one is an ex-Hammerskin, and is now a leftist who counter-protests against anti-immigrant groups), there are ex-KKK members, etc. It can and does happen.

But if you want your world to be easier then you should probably not attack the bigotry or ignorance of your father-in-law.

I realize this is how most of us deal with unpleasantness in our families. Sitting around the table at Thanksgiving, and Gramps pipes up with "The Chinese are a sneaky people." I understand why it's easier to just shake your head and think "He's old and he's not gonna change."

But some family bigotry should be confronted, not ignored because it's unpleasant. Home is where a lot of bigotry begins. Billy doesn't make a huge deal out of it, but he did start a thread about it here, and he said it upsets his wife. I think Billy could tackle it in the route the father-in-law opened -- "where's the evidence?" This could be a HINT -- the guy might've been challenging someone to TRY to show him evidence.

Again this is not what I meant. What I mean is that if you were comparing current media with cultural history that wouldn't be a good comparison. There are difference between the "lies" of the modern media and the lie of a propaganda driven "fake" holocaust.

Well, think about this example: "the Mexicans are planning to invade Texas." Lou Dobbs promoted this idea. He provided maps showing Mexico's plan to send immigrants into the U.S. to prepare the way for taking over much of the Southern USA, parts of California, etc. Where does Lou get these maps? From a white supremacist group. An example of ridiculous fringe idea you wouldn't expect anyone to take seriously, but the lie spread and filtered into the mainstream press.

So first you decided to assume that you knew what someone thought about one thing just because they thought something about something else? Just because someone doesn't believe the holocaust was an actual event they automatically think Hitler was awesome?[/

No. he said it. Here's how Billy described it: "my wife told me how she was raised to beleive that Hitler was a great leader, and that the Germans never killed any jews, and that it was all false propaganda started by them to gain sympathy." Then he said: "he just thinks that Hitler was a great leader"

If someone says "Hitler was a great leader", and the person also thinks the Holocaust never happened, and thinks it's all a Jewish lie, it's not some loopy out-of-left-field assumption that he probably meant it favorably when he called Hitler "great". Hence the relevance of the common-use definition of the word "great" in this discussion.

So he knows and apparently he's not afraid to bring it up and they still have to hear about it. Imagine that. I guess it didn't go off without a hitch afterall.

It didn't "go off" at all, actually. They've argued about it, but Billy didn't try to refute his claim (judging from his other comments, and his remark to me about how his father-in-law likely would respond IF he tried to refute the claims). Expressing disagreement over the issue didn't destroy the family or cause a melt-down. I don't think answering the guy's actual question about evidence would lead to a melt-down, either.

So you've done nothing but make him shut up around Billy. Why bring up a conversation just to get someone to shut up about something if you can just as easily ignore them?

"Nothing but" make him stop denying the Holocaust around you is kinda a good thing.
You seem hell-bent on the idea that it's some huge danger to say anything about it, and for the sake of "keeping the peace" we should avoid such disagreements in case they blow up.

Families argue, and it doesn't have to be an Earth-shattering event with lifetime consequences. Mature adults can argue about something and remain friends and love one another. I'm NOT saying your entire relationship with family should be one of constant conflict -- I'm talking about the real world and being rational and having perspective, and not fearing disagreement and debate. Sometimes it's worth debating, sometimes not.

 

[The Guard]

Does it change it? No. Is it tremendously frustrating and offensive, especially to the people who are targeted by such malicious conspiracy theories (Jews, generally, but groups targeted by Nazis as a whole)? Yes.

Kay.

Why?

The person who denies it happened is generally already a bigot or ignorant, and it already happened and anyone with a shred of intelligence knows it did, correct?

So how is it any more offensive to someone then?

I'd think it would be more embarassing for the person who indicates it never happened than it would be personally offensive.

I think some people need to get a thicker skin and think about stuff like this in context. I find it difficult to believe that truly intelligent and rational people would get personally offended by something so obviously wrong and ignorant.

But that's me.

And to answer your earlier question, anti-Semites deny the Holocaust because they believe it is a ploy by Jews to gain sympathy. Anything that would portray the Jewish people as oppressed or in any way put-upon, they either try to rationalize or out and out deny.

I see.

That's the point, it does. Bigots get their way, spread lies, etc. The people who directly suffer for it are the people they target, but then we also end up with laws based on that bigotry, for example.

How exactly do people directly suffer simply by someone saying "Nope, that didn't happen"?

What laws are we going to end up with if we don't stop the spread of "There was no Holocaust" sayers?

Look at Maine. Did it matter that a lot of bigots think gay marriage is sinful? Yep, it did. Look at Austria, where neo-Nazis (they don't call themselves that, of course, but it's what they are) rose back to power for a while and are still a relevant political party. They relied on bigotry fueled by a lot of lies and propaganda about foreigners and other things in order to spread their beliefs and gain an electoral majority that sent them into power.

How is this relevant to this discussion, or are you just talking about general bigotry and ignorance?

Holocaust denial is just one of lots of false beliefs and lies and propaganda that such people spread. If we ignore it, if we act like it's unimportant and doesn't matter, it spreads unchallenged. Plus, just on a basic level, if someone you know or in your family believes a terrible lie based on hatred, why wouldn't you want to tell them they are wrong? We can't stop lies that fuel hatred and bigotry if we refuse to confront them just because it feels uncomfortable.

1. How does it spread if no one thinks its important?

2. In my family? In my family, we allow people to make up their own minds about what they believe, and people reap what they sow and all that. I might mention "Hey, you keep saying things like that, you're going to look like a *****e", but that would be about it.

3. You can't really stop lies that fuel hatred and bigotry by simply confronting people or ostracizing them. It's up to individuals to choose what they do.

 

[RdeemingRainbow]

Not to go out of my way to sound rude, but this isn't the first argument that you've had on these boards where everyone just couldn't understand your points... It could be you.

"Everyone"? Quite an overstatement. I can think of perhaps one besides this thread where there was any significant instance of a person misunderstanding me a lot. It's usually a case of both sides not fully understanding one another. To the extent "it's me" -- which I don't deny -- it is the other side as well.

My point was that denying the holocaust doesn't turn someone into a neo-Nazi. You seem to mean that neo-Nazis turn into neo-Nazis when they hear that the holocaust isn't real. That's not true. ... But my point is that someone believing that the holocaust is fake does not necessarily mean that everyone who hears that is going to up and become a neo-Nazi like it's some sort of audible neo-Nazi plague. ... You realize that the belief that the holocaust was a big ol' fake does not make neo-Nazis but rather many many many beliefs. That's all I'm saying.

I never said that at all. I don't believe I even mildly implied it. It's a case where your interpretation is so far from what I said that I'm baffled. My argument is that Holocaust denial is an example of ONE of many lies and things that should be confronted, lest it spread and add fuel to bigotry. And I've consistently noted there are tons of factors leading to bigotry, and that belief in those doesn't make someone inherently a neo-Nazi.

No. I didn't. You do not need to put words into my mouth to make a point.

I didn't put words into your mouth. You said THIS on the previous page:

"Furthermore I'm not in the business of telling people what they should or shouldn't believe irrespective of whether or not they are right or wrong or even factually accurate. I trust that facts will speak for themselves in these matters and people will not be able to change that. If we start to become more controlling about what people think or believe about history we run the risk of controlling what people think. Then we're one step closer to Hitler."

So, how am I putting words into your mouth? You DID expand it into an issue of challenging all things we disagree with and that it can lead to Hitler, as I paraphrased in that quote you objected to. Notice the underlined portions that correspond precisely to how I characterized it.

You act like if the OP doesn't immediately confront his father-in-law then tomorrow we'll all be goosestepping around the ovens. I think you might be blowing this out of proportion just a little bit. This was never meant to be a world scale argument.

And I didn't make it into one. I also didn't say that if Billy doesn't refute his father-in-law that we'll all live in a Nazi society. Read the first and second pages of this thread, where broader issues got raised. I'm not blowing it out of proportion, I responded about broader issues because they got raised by others. You're blowing my own comments out of proportion, partly it seems because you've dramatically misread them. "One step closer to Hitler" as an outgrowth of me saying we should challenge bigoted lies and propaganda is a better example of blowing things out of proportion.

 

[RdeemingRainbow]

Stop making such a great big deal about it.

Uh, I'M making a big deal out of it? Several other people raised "greatness". I explained my disagreement. Then YOU are the one who in fact raised it again by ASKING for my definition. So I gave it to you, as you requested. Then you responded AGAIN saying you disagree with me about it. Now you've posted definitions of the word. WHO is making a big deal about it?

Now, about those definitions... I explained that I realize the different meanings of the word, that I suspected a different meaning may actually have been meant in one other post, and that I was talking about the more common-use of the word. Show me, please, WHERE you think your dictionary in any way, shape, or form refutes what I said? Did you MISS numbers 9 and 11 on that list? That "used as a general term of approval" part is exactly what I said, and I think it is the most common-use definition of the word by people.

And then after that you admitted that you knew that the intent of the word great in the post you responded to was probably NOT what you decided to base your ENTIRE argument in the response about. I think you just wanted to write a nice long post about how you don't like Hitler and completely ignore the contest of the post you quoted.

Nope. I could say I think you are misunderstanding/misquoting me just want to write a bunch of long posts for the point of being argumentative. But that's a rather presumptuous thing to say, right? I knew that in ONE person's comments about Hitler being a "great leader" he probably didn't mean the common-use definition -- but this thread is about a father-in-law whom I think DID mean the common-use definition when he said it. I used the fact of other people making the same remark from different perspectives as a way to address the original actual way it was meant (in my opinion, which I think there's pretty strong evidence to support) in the thread.

Does he hate you?

No, why would he? And I don't hate him. I am his favorite son-in-law, and we get along terrific and spend a lot of time hanging out whenever I'm around my in-laws.

I have had in-laws before and we disagreed on a lot of things so in order to maintain civility we didn't bring those topics up. It's not a difficult task.

"Had in-laws" -- do you not have them anymore? And did they/do they hate you? Serious question: if you "had" them but don't anymore, is part of your reluctance to confront family on these sorts of things due to any problems that arose with your own in-laws, and which in any way is related to them being former in-laws? If they are still in-laws, obviously these questions don't apply. But I'd like to know if your experience is influencing your view here -- my own experiences obviously influence my view on it.

No, it's never difficult to keep your mouth shut and ignore such things. Sometimes it's for the best, other times not. I don't believe in treating them all the same, it's a case-by-case thing depending on what's said, who says it, how bad it is, and the best way to handle it if it's worth confronting. That's not a crazy view.

Do you always feel the need to share your opinion anytime someone brings up a topic? Like if someone were to make a political comment at work do you immediately throw in your 2 cents about it?

No, I don't. Why do you ask? Be honest. Anyway, I'll "throw my 2 cents in" when it affects me personally (for example, if my dad praises Hitler and thinks the Jews conspire to make Nazis look bad or something like that). Or if someone at work feels comfortable enough to say they hate black people, then I certainly feel comfortable enough to tell them they're a bigot. But it depends on the conversation and what's said. If I'm PART of a conversation, then I feel free to state my own viewpoint. Do you feel the need to avoid sharing your opinion on topics, like if someone called black people a racial slur would you pipe down and worry about offending them by responding?

That's pretty untactful, annoying, and not a way to maintain peace in any environment. It is a good way to make people hate you though.

If someone makes an untactful, annoying racial slur, they aren't maintaining peace in the environment. And it's a pretty good way to make people hate them, too. I'm not so obsessed with maintaining peaceful environments that I just ignore every single instance of someone else disrupting that peace. If I'm at work and someone expresses political views, I usually ignore it and rarely care anyway. But if someone says, "Blacks are stupid criminals" then I'm going to respond. And I really, really don't care if I'm hated by people who would hate me for denouncing the use of a racial slur at work.

Do you worry more about being disliked than about standing up against racial slurs in the workplace? Is maintaining a peaceful environment so important to you that you will always in every instance refuse to respond to anyone else who disrupts that environment? Do you hate people -- quietly, without saying anything that might cause a scene -- who tell bigots they are bigots for using racial slurs out-loud at work?

 

[RdeemingRainbow]

How is this relevant to this discussion, or are you just talking about general bigotry and ignorance?

It's relevant because a good portion of people who voted to ban gay marriage did so due to a ridiculous, outlandish claim made by extreme fringe people who oppose gay marriage -- namely, that the law allowing gay marriage would force gay marriage to be taught in schools.

I am having a really hard time understanding how so many people can be refuting the notion that false, even ridiculous demonstrably false claims based on hatred can and do frequently lead to passage of bad laws and seep into society to help propagate hatred. Do I really need to point out how many people believe absurd things about black people, or about Jews, etc, and that widespread false beliefs of those sorts are among the things that help spread bigotry and ignorance and that those in turn lead to people voting and acting publicly in terrible ways based on those false beliefs and bigotry?

This isn't some strange, outlandish theory I'm suggesting here. It's pretty basic, normal common-sense stuff. If this is somehow a big controversial, crazy notion around here, then I'm more than a bit disturbed by the environment here.

1. How does it spread if no one thinks its important?

Just because YOU and I think something is unimportant and stupid doesn't mean it doesn't spread. Do you really have trouble thinking of any stupid, absurd lies that have spread and had an influence in society despite the fact the ideas are crazy and are actually only believed by a minority of people?

2. In my family? In my family, we allow people to make up their own minds about what they believe, and people reap what they sow and all that. I might mention "Hey, you keep saying things like that, you're going to look like a *****e", but that would be about it.

Really? You have a family that doesn't debate any issues, ever? You just all form your opinions apart from one another's views, and then don't mention them? And if your mom came home and told you she just heard something that you know is a lie but she believes it, you never tell her it's not true? Wow.

3. You can't really stop lies that fuel hatred and bigotry by simply confronting people or ostracizing them. It's up to individuals to choose what they do.

Really? You should build a time machine and go back and tell the civil rights movement, or the abolitionists, or the Jews in Nazi Germany, or Apartheid South Africa, that confronting and ostracizing people fueled by hatred and bigotry doesn't work. Let 'em know to just let the slaveowners and segregationists and Nazis and Apartheid regime to chose what to believe.

See, people tend to ACT on their beliefs. And to try and spread them. This notion that we just can't accomplish anything by confronting hatred and bigotry, and that we should just let people believe it without even speaking up against it, is so glaringly misguided and counter to the historical record that I am stunned to see it embraced by so many of you here.

 

[xisaacx]

Wow....even I know the horrible things Germans did to Jews back in the day. I'm curious if both Germans and Jews get along now? I know it's been 50+ years...but...yeah.

Can someone that knows tell me how long the Nazi's hid what they were doing from the world?

Well from what I read and its been a while they didn't really hide it. A lot of other countries and places knew what was going on but chose to ignore it, it even took the US a while to get involved.

 

[Majic Walrus]

This thread has become a chore to read. My god some of you are writing books man!!

I concur, all of my further arguments can be summed up by this:

I'm probably right and you're probably wrong.

 

[RdeemingRainbow]

I concur, all of my further arguments can be summed up by this:

I'm probably right and you're probably wrong.

Ha! You should've put "In summary:" before that.

I'll sum up my future arguments:
I think I'm right and you're wrong, too... but I proved it.

 

[Darthphere]

Why doesn't anybody ever talk about the good things the Nazi's did?

/Devil's Advocate.

 

[Majic Walrus]

I concur, all of my further arguments can be summed up by this:


Ha! You should've put "In summary:" before that.

I'll sum up my future arguments:
I think I'm right and you're wrong, too... but I proved it.

Nah, I shouldn't have put "in summary" just another example of me being right.

 

[The Guard]

It's relevant because a good portion of people who voted to ban gay marriage did so due to a ridiculous, outlandish claim made by extreme fringe people who oppose gay marriage -- namely, that the law allowing gay marriage would force gay marriage to be taught in schools.

Yeah. That's why gay marriage was banned. It wasn't that a lot of people simply don't agree with it to begin with. It was because it would be taught in schools (?). I suppose that's possible, though it's the first I've heard of this. Where did you obtain this information?

A lot of things seep through society. Confronting them every time they come up isn't going to stop them. It will only mark you as someone who is confrontational.

Leading by example is the answer to correct ignorant or bigoted behavior, and even then it gets kinda tricky.

Sure, ideas get exchanged. That is the nature of human interaction. But you are apparently suggesting that ignorance and bigotry, in this modern day, left unchecked, leads to actual laws that propagate hatred.

Which hatred laws are you referring to? I'm just not seeing that. At least here in the US.

Just because YOU and I think something is unimportant and stupid doesn't mean it doesn't spread. Do you really have trouble thinking of any stupid, absurd lies that have spread and had an influence in society despite the fact the ideas are crazy and are actually only believed by a minority of people?

I never said I feel something is unimportant or stupid. I was responding to your quote:

If we ignore it, if we act like it's unimportant and doesn't matter, it spreads unchallenged

Now, this is certainly not across the board, but if you challenge someone to a fight, and you fight, what usually happens between you two?

Conversely, if you successfully ignore a bully of some kind, what usually happens?

It's the same basic concept in my mind, with ignorance and bigotry, and peopel who try to spread those ideals.

Humor me for a second here.

If no one gives any credence to things like people saying the Holocaust never happened...if we, in fact, effectively treat them as somewhat childish and unimportant or irrelevant, then how are those ideas going to spread through the larger society?

Unless you really think that one person at a time will slowly become convinced that the holocaust never happened, or act like this, simply because others belive it, and that this will happen in large enough numbers to be significant in the larger society.

Really? You have a family that doesn't debate any issues, ever? You just all form your opinions apart from one another's views, and then don't mention them? And if your mom came home and told you she just heard something that you know is a lie but she believes it, you never tell her it's not true? Wow.[p/quote]

You did see this, didn't you?

I might mention "Hey, you keep saying things like that, you're going to look like a *****e"

We don't generally need to debate any issues, no, as we're all intelligent people, and we generally don't need to be conflicted about what, to us, seems obvious. I don't have issues with "bigotry and ignorance" in my family. Closest we have are a few family members who do stupid things every so often. Drugs, crime, being irresponsible, etc.

Do you know what we do collectively when those family members commit crimes, did drugs, etc?

We ignore them and leave them to their own devices, and to reap the consequences of their individual actions. We don't give in to what is sometimes OBVIOUS attention seeking behavior.

Know what happened? They stopped doing those things around us. Some of them matured and grew up a little.

My family believes that everyone is responsible for their own actions, and I happen to agree with them. If someone wants help with something, I'll provide help. If someone wants advice, I'll give it. If someone is just acting like a complete dumbass, though...that's on them. I'm not going to go "You're EMBARASSING ME!" or "That's IMMATURE and WRONG!" Because frankly, they're just embarassing themselves. I expect people to put on their big boy and big girl pants...and act like mature adults...or they're on their own.

Really? You should build a time machine and go back and tell the civil rights movement, or the abolitionists, or the Jews in Nazi Germany, or Apartheid South Africa, that confronting and ostracizing people fueled by hatred and bigotry doesn't work. Let 'em know to just let the slaveowners and segregationists and Nazis and Apartheid regime to chose what to believe

You really think that simply confronting people with bigoted ideas is what changed things duringthe Civil Rights Movement, Abolitionists, Nazi Germany, or Apartheid?

As I recall, it was mostly down to people who disagreed with bigoted and ignorant behavior setting a better example, working toward what they wanted, a better world and a better coexistence, without trying to outright "change" people's minds overnight. I really don't feel like marching around with signs is what changed things. But what do I know?

The issue with the Nazis turned into a war. I suppose that's a confrontation, but it didn't really solve the issue of bigotry that Jews faced and still do face often.

See, people tend to ACT on their beliefs. And to try and spread them. This notion that we just can't accomplish anything by confronting hatred and bigotry, and that we should just let people believe it without even speaking up against it, is so glaringly misguided and counter to the historical record that I am stunned to see it embraced by so many of you here

I never said you can't accomplish anything by confronting hatred and bigotry. I don't know that anyone else did, either. I think it's pretty clear that people simply feel that doing so in a familial setting is a bad idea. There's a huge difference between speaking out against something at the right time, and in the right way...and drawing others into direct confrontation that will often only escalate the situation.

In the case of Billy, it could be a bad idea to draw Uncle Ignoramus into conflict, when he could otherwise just set a good example with his own actions.

 

[RdeemingRainbow]

Yeah. That's why gay marriage was banned. It wasn't that a lot of people simply don't agree with it to begin with. It was because it would be taught in schools (?).

Yeah, it is. A lot of people - bigots - DO disagree with it. But it passed by a very narrow margin, and some people showed up to vote against it because of the TV ads that claimed (erroneously) that it would have to be taught in schools.

I suppose that's possible, though it's the first I've heard of this. Where did you obtain this information?

From the ads that said it (which were lies). And from the news interviews with voters outside polling places who said they didn't per se mind gay marriage but voted to ban gay marriage based on the belief that it would be taught in schools -- which came from those (lying) TV ads.

And for the people who did just oppose gay marriage across the board, you think they just oppose it without any actual beliefs about homosexuality or marriage as the underlying root cause of their opinion? No, they heard things, were told things, etc that influenced them in their lives to the point they came to oppose gay marriage and homosexuality. The point still stands -- people hear lies and false information that leads them to develop bigotry.

A lot of things seep through society. Confronting them every time they come up isn't going to stop them. It will only mark you as someone who is confrontational.

Oh, good grief. Again with the notion that it's the person who stands up AGAINST bigotry who is the confrontational one, not all those people espousing bigotry in the first place. When a bunch of people who hate gays go around trying to stop gay marriage, THEY are the ones starting a confrontation. When that crap seeps into society, confronting it is the rational and right response.

And again, the claim that confronting them isn't going to stop them is absurd and demonstrably false. Have you just never read a history book, heard about the civil rights movement, and so on? I never said we should confront every single instance ever that ever happens everywhere, I kind of repeatedly kept having to point out that I did NOT say that, in fact. But when the lie and bigotry is bad enough, is in a context where it causes a problem, where the person is upset by it, and when it's something that happens to be among the lies and false information and bigotry that is spreading in society and/or (and OR, and OR) leading to calls for laws based on that bigotry (like the anti-gay marriage thing), then it should be confronted.

And if a bunch of bigots think "that's just a guy who's confrontational" or a bunch of non-bigots think "those bigots aren't the ones causing a confrontation, it's that guy who is opposing their hatred who is the problem" then I really couldn't possibly care less WHAT those people think.

Sure, ideas get exchanged. That is the nature of human interaction. But you are apparently suggesting that ignorance and bigotry, in this modern day, left unchecked, leads to actual laws that propagate hatred.

No, I'm not. I'm suggesting that SOME ignorance and bigotry, if left unchecked, leads to laws that propagate hatred and/OR (and OR, and OR) to at least continuing the spread of bigotry. And I said not JUST in modern times, but HISTORICALLY -- which is why I listed a bunch of examples from HISTORY.

Which hatred laws are you referring to? I'm just not seeing that. At least here in the US.

Ones I explicitly mentioned, for example. Like slavery and segregation (we had passage of the Civil Rights Act and the end of legalized segregation only within the last 40 and 50 odd years, out of a national history that spans more than 230 years). Like banning gay marriage in the modern times. Then there are examples elsewhere in the world, since I didn't limit it to just this nation. The examples of hate laws and discriminatory laws around the world is plentiful, so if you want to see them, use Google.

 

[RdeemingRainbow]

Yeah. That's why gay marriage was banned. It wasn't that a lot of people simply don't agree with it to begin with. It was because it would be taught in schools (?).

Yeah, it is. A lot of people - bigots - DO disagree with it. But it passed by a very narrow margin, and some people showed up to vote against it because of the TV ads that claimed (erroneously) that it would have to be taught in schools.

I suppose that's possible, though it's the first I've heard of this. Where did you obtain this information?

From the ads that said it (which were lies). And from the news interviews with voters outside polling places who said they didn't per se mind gay marriage but voted to ban gay marriage based on the belief that it would be taught in schools -- which came from those (lying) TV ads.

And for the people who did just oppose gay marriage across the board, you think they just oppose it without any actual beliefs about homosexuality or marriage as the underlying root cause of their opinion? No, they heard things, were told things, etc that influenced them in their lives to the point they came to oppose gay marriage and homosexuality. The point still stands -- people hear lies and false information that leads them to develop bigotry.

A lot of things seep through society. Confronting them every time they come up isn't going to stop them. It will only mark you as someone who is confrontational.

Oh, good grief. Again with the notion that it's the person who stands up AGAINST bigotry who is the confrontational one, not all those people espousing bigotry in the first place. When a bunch of people who hate gays go around trying to stop gay marriage, THEY are the ones starting a confrontation. When that crap seeps into society, confronting it is the rational and right response.

And again, the claim that confronting them isn't going to stop them is absurd and demonstrably false. Have you just never read a history book, heard about the civil rights movement, and so on? I never said we should confront every single instance ever that ever happens everywhere, I kind of repeatedly kept having to point out that I did NOT say that, in fact. But when the lie and bigotry is bad enough, is in a context where it causes a problem, where the person is upset by it, and when it's something that happens to be among the lies and false information and bigotry that is spreading in society and/or (and OR, and OR) leading to calls for laws based on that bigotry (like the anti-gay marriage thing), then it should be confronted.

And if a bunch of bigots think "that's just a guy who's confrontational" or a bunch of non-bigots think "those bigots aren't the ones causing a confrontation, it's that guy who is opposing their hatred who is the problem" then I really couldn't possibly care less WHAT those people think.

Sure, ideas get exchanged. That is the nature of human interaction. But you are apparently suggesting that ignorance and bigotry, in this modern day, left unchecked, leads to actual laws that propagate hatred.

No, I'm not. I'm suggesting that SOME ignorance and bigotry, if left unchecked, leads to laws that propagate hatred and/OR (and OR, and OR) to at least continuing the spread of bigotry. And I said not JUST in modern times, but HISTORICALLY -- which is why I listed a bunch of examples from HISTORY.

Which hatred laws are you referring to? I'm just not seeing that. At least here in the US.

Ones I explicitly mentioned, for example. Like slavery and segregation (we had passage of the Civil Rights Act and the end of legalized segregation only within the last 40 and 50 odd years, out of a national history that spans more than 230 years). Like banning gay marriage in the modern times. Then there are examples elsewhere in the world, since I didn't limit it to just this nation. The examples of hate laws and discriminatory laws around the world is plentiful, so if you want to see them, use Google.

I never said I feel something is unimportant or stupid.

Well, my quote there was in response to you using "no one" so I thought you were including yourself, plus the entire point you seem to be challenging with your list of responses was about why we should still challenge lies even when we can see they are ridiculous and seem obviously false and when most people don't think the lie is really "important".

If no one gives any credence to things like people saying the Holocaust never happened...if we, in fact, effectively treat them as somewhat childish and unimportant or irrelevant, then how are those ideas going to spread through the larger society?

The way they have in the past and in the present. I've made the point over and over that historically, it doesn't require an actual majority or even large number of people believing a lie or a bigoted idea for it to have a serious, dangerous impact. Ideas either spread or they don't, and if you think there's no precedent for bad, seemingly obviously crazy ideas to spread even though the vast majority of people don't believe it, then you should look at history. Or today's newspapers. Or Lou Dobbs, as I mentioned earlier.

People initially treated Hitler and his thugs as a joke, didn't think they had any chance of becoming a significant social force, etc. They were pretty roundly mocked by other political groups and didn't enjoy any actually large audience for their messages for several years. Over time, however, their constant presence in society and the loudness of their message and their ability to keep disseminating it through society -- even though at first society didn't buy their crap -- eventually led them to what? Victory. But even THEN, Hitler still never won a majority himself in the elections, and in fact the Nazis started to already see a steady decrease in their electoral support in the Reichstag after a short time (before elections just stopped happening, of course).

I'm not saying I think that left unchecked everybody in the U.S. or the world will believe the Holocaust was faked. I'm saying that such a lie is one example of many that combine to influence thoughts and ideas, which breeds ignorance and bigotry, and that it doesn't take a majority or even necessarily always a large minority for such things to have a dangerous impact on society or in different nations. The combination of lots of different such lies -- including, yes, Holocaust denial -- were at the heart of the message of Austria's modern-day neo-Nazis, and over time they shocked everyone by coming to power. But prior to that, everyone tended to dismiss them as a joke and non-threat and unimportant.

Unless you really think that one person at a time will slowly become convinced that the holocaust never happened, or act like this, simply because others belive it, and that this will happen in large enough numbers to be significant in the larger society.

You need to recognize it as what it actually is -- the Holocaust denial itself is one weapon in the arsenal of a broader movement and ideology, and it's one seed that gets put out there. It isn't meant to literally be spread to everybody, and the people espousing it aren't trying to spread it in the belief that it'll actually become the dominant viewpoint. They just want to spread it ENOUGH, and to use it as one brick in the creepy little wall they build. The depend on only SOME people falling for it, and thus becoming open to more of their messaging.

If nobody bothered to even address these claims, and these speakers, and their books and their "research", it builds into more of a cottage industry than it already is, and I don't have any trouble at all imagining that someone with little actual knowledge or schooling in the subject could see the claims and research -- a lot of which is written to appear very scholarly, and uses lots of documents and on-site inspections etc -- and actually fall for it, yes. Not a majority of people, but more than I think you'd expect.

I don't underestimate the power of a lie that feeds into other potential preconceptions or prejudices, and that provides an "out" from certain types of guilt or fear. Consider that Holocaust denial has had a particular allure in some European nations, partly no doubt due to the obvious fact that it would certainly mitigate a large amount of collective guilt and blame that some nations have felt. That seems rather obvious to me, and in recent years the rise to power of neo-Nazism in Austria and the very disturbing trend toward neo-Nazi sympathizers and actual members, as well as sentiments derived directly from neo-Nazi propaganda and pseudo-fascist parties (they can't be overtly Nazis, as it's banned there), demonstrate the dangers.

You really think that simply confronting people with bigoted ideas is what changed things duringthe Civil Rights Movement, Abolitionists, Nazi Germany, or Apartheid?

I'm not saying it's the only thing that ended it. It is a PART of ending bigotry. But if you think it was just a small part of it, then you'd be grossly mistaken. I know the history of the Civil Rights Movement, of Abolition, of Apartheid, of WWII, etc, and I know the roll that speaking out and confronting it -- or remaining silent -- played.

Let's flip it around -- you really think that IGNORING and NON-confrontation of bigotry and lies was a big part of the Civil Rights Movement, Abolition, etc?

As I recall, it was mostly down to people who disagreed with bigoted and ignorant behavior setting a better example, working toward what they wanted, a better world and a better coexistence, without trying to outright "change" people's minds overnight. I really don't feel like marching around with signs is what changed things. But what do I know?

I didn't say that confronting it changes it or changed it overnight. And if you think that the bus boycotts, the lawsuits, the sit-ins at counters, the protest at which the nation saw cops attacking Civil Rights marchers and supporters with hoses and dogs, were not instrumental in the successes the movement achieved, then you are very right to ask "But what do I know?"

The issue with the Nazis turned into a war. I suppose that's a confrontation, but it didn't really solve the issue of bigotry that Jews faced and still do face often.

That's a reverse example I was making there, and I realize I wasn't clear enough about that, so sorry for not explaining it better. In that instance, I meant first of all that the failure to confront and fight against Nazi propaganda in the early years before they took power was a huge mistake, and that once they won elections and got seats in the Reichstag (not a majority, though) their views still were not confronted even though in fact many other political parties (who together had a much larger following than the Nazis) opposed the Nazi rhetoric against Jews, for example.

Once Hitler did take power, other nations scrambled in the early years to invest in Germany, to make deals with them, and overall really liked what Nazism meant for corporate investment. They hosted the Olympics, and were nice enough to take down the "no jews" signs, and every other nation was nice enough to let the removal of the signs be enough and not raise a bigger fuss over the rampant discrimination.

Lots of political people and military people -- and even some people who JOINED and funded the Nazis in their early years and initial rise to power -- called the hatred of Jews "silly" and opposed it, but tolerated it and didn't speak up because they didn't think it was important and certainly didn't realize where it would lead.

I never said you can't accomplish anything by confronting hatred and bigotry. I don't know that anyone else did, either.

They did. It was explicitly stated in other posts that you can't/don't fight bigotry by confronting lies and people who hold bigoted views you disagree with. As for your own comments, the discussion and plenty of what you responded to were not simply about the context of familial settings, but were about broader issues and situations and the basic concept of confronting bigotry by also confronting the lies and distortions etc that help fuel and spread bigotry.

You've made multiple comments challenging and disagreeing with that notion, in the broader sense, not just in the familial one. So if I'm saying that I think that in some cases, depending on what is said, that it can be important to confront lies like Holocaust denial, and you step in to debate me and keep challenging my stated viewpoint, it's reasonable to assume you must disagree with my viewpoint or you wouldn't be arguing with me about it.

I think it's pretty clear that people simply feel that doing so in a familial setting is a bad idea. There's a huge difference between speaking out against something at the right time, and in the right way...and drawing others into direct confrontation that will often only escalate the situation.

And I think it's pretty clear -- since I've said it repeatedly -- that I don't think EVERY instance in a familial setting should be challenged, that it depends on the who, what, where, and when. Whereas your comment right there, and the comments throughout the debate from the opposing viewpoint, HAVE most of the time (MOST OF THE TIME, so please don't take it/claim it as saying all of the time) said that it just should not be done in family settings at all. You're first sentence there DID say it just like that. You follow it up by saying it's okay at the "fight time, and in the right way" -- well, yeah, which is what I've said over and over.

Seems to me that you and a few other people must feel pretty strongly that it is at least "usually" if not "most of the time" (or perhaps even "all of the time") a bad idea to challenge family bigotry even when it's expressed directly to you personally, and even when it's something as extreme as endorsing Hitler as a great leader while also denying the Holocaust happened and thinking it's a Jewish plot to get sympathy. That's not just your typical sort of "granddad made a racist remark" situation, that's espousing a string of claims and views that are among the most fundamental aspects of modern neo-Nazi propaganda. And it has been very hurtful to his wife over the years, and disturbs Billy as well, and he was motivated to post about it.

You think that's all something that's not worth arguing with him about because that would make Billy -- rather than the dude repeatedly quoting neo-Nazi propaganda -- the "confrontational one", and could cause a big family melt-down or something. Despite the fact that Billy said he's argued with the guy about it before and they didn't disown Billy's wife or ban Billy from the house. But the guy DID ask a specific question -- "where's the evidence?" -- and Billy's response to my suggested presenting of evidence was a belief that the guy would probably not listen to it, which suggests Billy HASN'T included an actual response to "where's the evidence" among his arguments with the guy.

I think the guy's comments, the fact that Billy and his wife are still welcome in the dad's home, and the ease of supplying evidence in response to the guy's unanswered question in a way that's polite and even suggests the guy just didn't realize it, is not some crazed outlandish concept that's going to cause a big family problem, which is what my belief has been treated like. I'm not proposing a new, strange concept, nor am I conflating things -- I think suggesting it could be a major catastrophe for the family is what qualifies as overstating the situation, personally.

In this instance, with these facts, the who, what, where, when, and why add up to a situation where I think it would be worthwhile to wait for the guy to say it again and then respond not by arguing, but by answering his question politely. That's rational, reasonable, and one of the ways to confront lies and bigotry. If anyone still disagrees with that, I just don't know what to say anymore, because it's like we're talking in different languages.

 

[Majic Walrus]

Dude if each of your posts were like... normal sized... you'd have about 10,000 posts by now.

 

[Ghostvirus]

I concur, all of my further arguments can be summed up by this:

I'm probably right and you're probably wrong.

I don't really see how it is an argument. A person that denies the holocaust is a person that I do not want to associate with.

 

[Majic Walrus]

I don't really see how it is an argument. A person that denies the holocaust is a person that I do not want to associate with.

My comment was a joke.

 

[The Guard]

Yeah, it is. A lot of people - bigots - DO disagree with it. But it passed by a very narrow margin, and some people showed up to vote against it because of the TV ads that claimed (erroneously) that it would have to be taught in schools.

I find it very hard to believe that most people who didn't vote against it to begin with simply didn't already feel homosexuality is wrong, or that two men or two women simply shouldn't marry or be granted the same financial rights as married couples.

Otherwise, why would they give a damn about it being taught in schools at any point?

In other words, I refuse to believe that most who voted against it were for gay marriage on any level before the "school ads".

And for the people who did just oppose gay marriage across the board, you think they just oppose it without any actual beliefs about homosexuality or marriage as the underlying root cause of their opinion? No, they heard things, were told things, etc that influenced them in their lives to the point they came to oppose gay marriage and homosexuality. The point still stands -- people hear lies and false information that leads them to develop bigotry.

Of course I don't think they just oppose it without any actual beliefs.

Beliefs have to be learned.

"Lies" and "false information" are somewhat relative, depending on the situation. Sometimes people hear a kernel truth, and they just take that kernel too far.

Oh, good grief. Again with the notion that it's the person who stands up AGAINST bigotry who is the confrontational one, not all those people espousing bigotry in the first place. When a bunch of people who hate gays go around trying to stop gay marriage, THEY are the ones starting a confrontation. When that crap seeps into society, confronting it is the rational and right response.

I did not suggest that the people espousing bigotry aren't being confrontational.

Confrontation is confrontation.

But two wrongs don't make a right and all that.

"Confronting" it in what sense is the rational and right response? In terms of just having a face to face meeting about an issue?

And again, the claim that confronting them isn't going to stop them is absurd and demonstrably false. Have you just never read a history book, heard about the civil rights movement, and so on? I never said we should confront every single instance ever that ever happens everywhere, I kind of repeatedly kept having to point out that I did NOT say that, in fact. But when the lie and bigotry is bad enough, is in a context where it causes a problem, where the person is upset by it, and when it's something that happens to be among the lies and false information and bigotry that is spreading in society and/or (and OR, and OR) leading to calls for laws based on that bigotry (like the anti-gay marriage thing), then it should be confronted.

First.

Which definition of "confrontation" are you using?

Are we talking about something simply being addressed, or an actual "confrontation"? Because initially, we were talking about an actual confrontation.

Second. Do me a favor. Stop with the nonsense like "Have you ever read a history book"? You seem far too intelligent to need to resort to veiled insults to make a point. It's childish, and it's a waste of your time to type, and my time to read.

Again. If you really think the confrontational elements of the Civil Rights Movement is what changed things...I just cannot agree. Confrontational elements during this era, and others like it created escalating tensions, and this served to make people aware of issues that they were already largely aware of. It wasn't until nonviolent, somewhat media-driven and educational and legislative activity began to take place that things changed for the better.

The more peaceful and courteous demonstrations and people setting a good example and working to educate others and foster cooperation without escalating to pure conflict is what changed things on any appreciable level. Not riots, confrontations, and escalation of conflict.

Most kinds of confrontation only breed more confrontation in my experience.

No, I'm not. I'm suggesting that SOME ignorance and bigotry, if left unchecked, leads to laws that propagate hatred and/OR (and OR, and OR) to at least continuing the spread of bigotry. And I said not JUST in modern times, but HISTORICALLY -- which is why I listed a bunch of examples from HISTORY.

Why, pray tell, would I, in this context, worry about what happened historically, when I live in 2009?

Doomed to repeat history is all well and good, but again, in this case, what are some modern laws based on hate and ignorance that I should worry about being enacted?

Ones I explicitly mentioned, for example. Like slavery and segregation (we had passage of the Civil Rights Act and the end of legalized segregation only within the last 40 and 50 odd years, out of a national history that spans more than 230 years).

Here's the thing. And again, and forgive me for ignoring history...it's 2009, and we aren't going to see any slavery laws any time soon. I think we're, for lack of a better term, past those days.

So why would I be worried about how something that happened in the past bodes for the future, in the context of this discussion, that is, in terms of social ideals turning into hate-based laws (not that slavery was ever truly based on hatred, mind you).

Like banning gay marriage in the modern times. Then there are examples elsewhere in the world, since I didn't limit it to just this nation. The examples of hate laws and discriminatory laws around the world is plentiful, so if you want to see them, use Google.

I fail to see how banning gay marriage is about hatred on any level.

Banning homosexuality itself might be, but I don't know that banning gay marriage falls into that category at all.

There are some laws that are probably born out of hatred and bigotry, but I also think you have to look at discriminatory laws through the correct context. Not everything is about hatred and bigotry. Some things are just culturally defined as being right or wrong.

Well, my quote there was in response to you using "no one" so I thought you were including yourself, plus the entire point you seem to be challenging with your list of responses was about why we should still challenge lies even when we can see they are ridiculous and seem obviously false and when most people don't think the lie is really "important".

...

What?

[quote[The way they have in the past and in the present. I've made the point over and over that historically, it doesn't require an actual majority or even large number of people believing a lie or a bigoted idea for it to have a serious, dangerous impact. Ideas either spread or they don't, and if you think there's no precedent for bad, seemingly obviously crazy ideas to spread even though the vast majority of people don't believe it, then you should look at history. Or today's newspapers. Or Lou Dobbs, as I mentioned earlier.[/quote]

I would think it would require a large amount of people to hold a belief for that belief to have anything remotely close to a significant impact.

Sure, bad ideas can spread. But does that give them any more credibility as ideas in the long run?

People initially treated Hitler and his thugs as a joke, didn't think they had any chance of becoming a significant social force, etc. They were pretty roundly mocked by other political groups and didn't enjoy any actually large audience for their messages for several years. Over time, however, their constant presence in society and the loudness of their message and their ability to keep disseminating it through society -- even though at first society didn't buy their crap -- eventually led them to what? Victory. But even THEN, Hitler still never won a majority himself in the elections, and in fact the Nazis started to already see a steady decrease in their electoral support in the Reichstag after a short time (before elections just stopped happening, of course).

Hitler came to power because his people were basically desperate. But fair enough. What does that tell you about ideas and the people who profess to believe them?

I'm not saying I think that left unchecked everybody in the U.S. or the world will believe the Holocaust was faked. I'm saying that such a lie is one example of many that combine to influence thoughts and ideas, which breeds ignorance and bigotry, and that it doesn't take a majority or even necessarily always a large minority for such things to have a dangerous impact on society or in different nations. The combination of lots of different such lies -- including, yes, Holocaust denial -- were at the heart of the message of Austria's modern-day neo-Nazis, and over time they shocked everyone by coming to power. But prior to that, everyone tended to dismiss them as a joke and non-threat and unimportant.

That's a pretty vague threat. "Something could happen because there's some ignorance out there". Can't you say that about darn near anything?

Two questions, as I am not a student of Austrian politics.

1. Is their denial of the holocaust and their hatred of jews what got them into power?

2. How will their denial of the holocaust affect anything in a lasting or important manner?

You need to recognize it as what it actually is -- the Holocaust denial itself is one weapon in the arsenal of a broader movement and ideology, and it's one seed that gets put out there. It isn't meant to literally be spread to everybody, and the people espousing it aren't trying to spread it in the belief that it'll actually become the dominant viewpoint. They just want to spread it ENOUGH, and to use it as one brick in the creepy little wall they build. The depend on only SOME people falling for it, and thus becoming open to more of their messaging.

Kay. But a seed to do...what?

They want to spread it enough for what, exactly?

If nobody bothered to even address these claims, and these speakers, and their books and their "research", it builds into more of a cottage industry than it already is, and I don't have any trouble at all imagining that someone with little actual knowledge or schooling in the subject could see the claims and research -- a lot of which is written to appear very scholarly, and uses lots of documents and on-site inspections etc -- and actually fall for it, yes. Not a majority of people, but more than I think you'd expect.

And that would lead to...what?

Some people who fell for a lie that they should probably know better than...now believe in a lie...ok.

This impacts their country or the rest of the world...how?

 

[The Guard]

I don't underestimate the power of a lie that feeds into other potential preconceptions or prejudices, and that provides an "out" from certain types of guilt or fear. Consider that Holocaust denial has had a particular allure in some European nations, partly no doubt due to the obvious fact that it would certainly mitigate a large amount of collective guilt and blame that some nations have felt. That seems rather obvious to me, and in recent years the rise to power of neo-Nazism in Austria and the very disturbing trend toward neo-Nazi sympathizers and actual members, as well as sentiments derived directly from neo-Nazi propaganda and pseudo-fascist parties (they can't be overtly Nazis, as it's banned there), demonstrate the dangers.

It seems silly to me for someone to feel guilty over something you likely had no direct role in.

But that's...again, just me.

I'm not saying it's the only thing that ended it. It is a PART of ending bigotry. But if you think it was just a small part of it, then you'd be grossly mistaken. I know the history of the Civil Rights Movement, of Abolition, of Apartheid, of WWII, etc, and I know the roll that speaking out and confronting it -- or remaining silent -- played.

Again, which definition of "confrontation" are you using?

Let's flip it around -- you really think that IGNORING and NON-confrontation of bigotry and lies was a big part of the Civil Rights Movement, Abolition, etc?

No...did I say such a thing?

I feel like I've been fairly clear over what I believe made these movements successful.

I didn't say that confronting it changes it or changed it overnight. And if you think that the bus boycotts, the lawsuits, the sit-ins at counters, the protest at which the nation saw cops attacking Civil Rights marchers and supporters with hoses and dogs, were not instrumental in the successes the movement achieved, then you are very right to ask "But what do I know?"

Define "instrumental".

These events made the movement visible, but they are not the strength that caused the movement to succeed in the end.

That's a reverse example I was making there, and I realize I wasn't clear enough about that, so sorry for not explaining it better. In that instance, I meant first of all that the failure to confront and fight against Nazi propaganda in the early years before they took power was a huge mistake, and that once they won elections and got seats in the Reichstag (not a majority, though) their views still were not confronted even though in fact many other political parties (who together had a much larger following than the Nazis) opposed the Nazi rhetoric against Jews, for example.

I would think opposing politicians, simply by virtue of BEING politicians, probably did confront the ideals the opposing parties were espousing, pretty much all the time.

Once Hitler did take power, other nations scrambled in the early years to invest in Germany, to make deals with them, and overall really liked what Nazism meant for corporate investment. They hosted the Olympics, and were nice enough to take down the "no jews" signs, and every other nation was nice enough to let the removal of the signs be enough and not raise a bigger fuss over the rampant discrimination.

Lots of political people and military people -- and even some people who JOINED and funded the Nazis in their early years and initial rise to power -- called the hatred of Jews "silly" and opposed it, but tolerated it and didn't speak up because they didn't think it was important and certainly didn't realize where it would lead.

It's my understanding that the nations of the world, who knew darn well what was going on as events unfolded, essentially tolerated what Germany was doing because it was profitable to do so. When it became less than profitable and Germany posed a greater threat, there was war.

They did. It was explicitly stated in other posts that you can't/don't fight bigotry by confronting lies and people who hold bigoted views you disagree with. As for your own comments, the discussion and plenty of what you responded to were not simply about the context of familial settings, but were about broader issues and situations and the basic concept of confronting bigotry by also confronting the lies and distortions etc that help fuel and spread bigotry.

You've made multiple comments challenging and disagreeing with that notion, in the broader sense, not just in the familial one. So if I'm saying that I think that in some cases, depending on what is said, that it can be important to confront lies like Holocaust denial, and you step in to debate me and keep challenging my stated viewpoint, it's reasonable to assume you must disagree with my viewpoint or you wouldn't be arguing with me about it.

I should note. Me believing it is possible to accomplish something by confronting hatred and bigotry does not indicate whether one accomplishes good or bad things by doing so. It's all very situational, although most of the time, a direct confrontation does not end well.

And again. Your definition of "confrontation", please.

And I think it's pretty clear -- since I've said it repeatedly -- that I don't think EVERY instance in a familial setting should be challenged, that it depends on the who, what, where, and when. Whereas your comment right there, and the comments throughout the debate from the opposing viewpoint, HAVE most of the time (MOST OF THE TIME, so please don't take it/claim it as saying all of the time) said that it just should not be done in family settings at all. You're first sentence there DID say it just like that. You follow it up by saying it's okay at the "fight time, and in the right way" -- well, yeah, which is what I've said over and over.

It's generally a bad idea, yes. Rarely does confronting a family member about deeply held beliefs, in terms of trying to challenge or alter those beliefs, end well.

Seems to me that you and a few other people must feel pretty strongly that it is at least "usually" if not "most of the time" (or perhaps even "all of the time") a bad idea to challenge family bigotry even when it's expressed directly to you personally, and even when it's something as extreme as endorsing Hitler as a great leader while also denying the Holocaust happened and thinking it's a Jewish plot to get sympathy. That's not just your typical sort of "granddad made a racist remark" situation, that's espousing a string of claims and views that are among the most fundamental aspects of modern neo-Nazi propaganda. And it has been very hurtful to his wife over the years, and disturbs Billy as well, and he was motivated to post about it.

This is clearly one of grandad's deeply held beliefs. Confronting people about their deeply held beliefs rarely, if ever, leads to anything but an escalation of conflict.

You think that's all something that's not worth arguing with him about because that would make Billy -- rather than the dude repeatedly quoting neo-Nazi propaganda -- the "confrontational one", and could cause a big family melt-down or something. Despite the fact that Billy said he's argued with the guy about it before and they didn't disown Billy's wife or ban Billy from the house. But the guy DID ask a specific question -- "where's the evidence?" -- and Billy's response to my suggested presenting of evidence was a belief that the guy would probably not listen to it, which suggests Billy HASN'T included an actual response to "where's the evidence" among his arguments with the guy.

His granddad strikes me as fairly irrational. Not only is it a bad idea to confront deeply held beliefs, it's an even worse idea to create conflict surrounding an IRRATIONAL person's deeply held beliefs.

I think the guy's comments, the fact that Billy and his wife are still welcome in the dad's home, and the ease of supplying evidence in response to the guy's unanswered question in a way that's polite and even suggests the guy just didn't realize it, is not some crazed outlandish concept that's going to cause a big family problem, which is what my belief has been treated like. I'm not proposing a new, strange concept, nor am I conflating things -- I think suggesting it could be a major catastrophe for the family is what qualifies as overstating the situation, personally.

Politely educating someone is not neccessarily anything approaching confrontation, though. Unless you are referring to the definition of confronting which basically means "addressing".

I maintain that an actual confrontation on the man's deeply held beliefs would likely end badly.

In this instance, with these facts, the who, what, where, when, and why add up to a situation where I think it would be worthwhile to wait for the guy to say it again and then respond not by arguing, but by answering his question politely. That's rational, reasonable, and one of the ways to confront lies and bigotry. If anyone still disagrees with that, I just don't know what to say anymore, because it's like we're talking in different languages.

That's not a confrontation in the context we've been discussing, though.

I see what's going on here.

We're not talking in different languages. We're speaking English, where there are multiple meanings for words. You've apparently chosen to use "confrontation", a word people generally take to involve CONFLICT, in multiple forms, both that of simply having a face to face discussion or addressing of issues, and the more tense type of conflict that escalates situations.

 

[RdeemingRainbow]

I find it very hard to believe that most people who didn't vote against it to begin with simply didn't already feel homosexuality is wrong, or that two men or two women shouldn't marry. Otherwise, why would they give a damn about it being taught in schools?

There were people who don't necessarily personally care for homosexuality, but who might not want actual laws discriminating against them. Believe it or not, there are people in the world who don't think everything they dislike should be illegal. Then they saw commercials claiming it would be mandatory to teach it in schools, and they were stupid enough/naive enough to believe it, and it was the thing that tipped the scales to make them go out and vote against it.

I refuse to believe that everyone who voted against it were FOR gay marriage before the "school ads".

And I refuse to believe you're psychic, so there we are.

Of course I don't think they just oppose it without any actual beliefs.
Beliefs have to be learned.
"Lies" and "false information" are somewhat relative.

Wow, and that's what I've said all along, that beliefs are learned -- and taught. The main ways that bigoted beliefs are learned is through lies and false information. And I'm not going to get into a debate over relativity of "lies", we're discussing specific instances where we are talking about lies and deception.

Not everyone becomes a bigot, and not everyone who thinks something is wrong is a bigot.

And of course, I never said everyone becomes a bigot, or that everyone who thinks something is wrong is a bigot. Otherwise people who think bigotry is wrong would be bigots for thinking bigotry is wrong. But if you single out a segment of the population (like gays or Jews) for discrimination and hatred, then yes you're a bigot.

Two wrongs don't make a right and all that.

Yeah, but you only seem to get worked up about one of those so-called "wrongs". The one I don't think is "wrong" in the first place. This is the weak kind of argument that doesn't hold up. You're comparing a truthful response to a lie that instigates the exchange in the first place, as if there is some sort of parity involved. It's not an equal situation, and responding to a confrontational lie by "confronting" it with the truth is not the same thing at all. I can't even take that argument seriously.

Do me a favor. Stop with the nonsense like "Have you ever read a history book"? You're far too intelligent to need to resort to veiled insults to make a point. It's childish, and it's a waste of your time to type, and my time to read.

Then stop misstating my comments, and stop responding in obtuse manners and with disingenuous questions. If you want to use condescending remarks to me and others, don't get pissy about it coming back your way. THAT'S childish and a waste of my time to read. Talk to me with respect, and you'll get the same measure back. Get smarmy and smart@** and talk down to me, and you'll find out pretty fast that I can give as good as I get. You don't get to speak down to other folks and demand a free-pass yourself.

I got to that quote from you, and with a quick scan I confirmed that most of the rest of your post is either just more condescension or overt obtuseness. I might come back and respond to it tomorrow, or might ignore it. But two final little points I'll make:

(a) Since you and others are the ones claiming my view is "confrontational", a repeated claim, and since I think my concept of "confrontation" is clear from the fact that I explicitly described exactly how I'd "confront" the father-in-law and then explicitly described forms of "confrontation" from the Civil Rights Movement that I was talking about, I don't feel a need to waste time defining words over and over for you. Read what I wrote, you'll find the definitions pretty overtly stated. And I didn't chose "confrontation", pretty much everyone else engaged in any back-and-forth here has used the word as well. Like you, for example. So why did YOU chose it? Never mind, don't answer, I'm honestly not worked up over it, certainly not enough to keep asking over and over for a definition. I read what you wrote, so I think I know anyway.

(b) If you fail to see how banning gay marriage is hateful on any level, then I suspect you support banning gay marriage. And I think that's a bigoted view. If I told you I think interracial marriage should be banned, you'd probably -- and rightly -- call that bigoted.

It's not simply denial of a right to enter into contracts based solely on not liking gay people, it is an attempt to deny gay couples access to one of the social institutions that is among the primary recognized symbols of love and family. Denying gay people the right to marry is about preventing a step that would legitimize their relationships and their love as acceptable and valid. The symbolism is the overriding factor, and opposition to gay people achieving access to that symbol is based on nothing, NOTHING, but ignorant hatred against gay people. And that ignorant hatred leads to the ignorant hateful banning of gay marriage. And it's bigotry, and supporting it and believing it makes someone a bigot.

G'night.

 

[E-Man]

Why doesn't anybody ever talk about the good things the Nazi's did?

/Devil's Advocate.

This guy does.

 

[The Guard]

There were people who don't necessarily personally care for homosexuality, but who might not want actual laws discriminating against them. Believe it or not, there are people in the world who don't think everything they dislike should be illegal. Then they saw commercials claiming it would be mandatory to teach it in schools, and they were stupid enough/naive enough to believe it, and it was the thing that tipped the scales to make them go out and vote against it.

I'm sure there were...but the majority of the people who voted against it opting to do so because of those commercials? I very much doubt it.

Now then...this debate/conversation isn't going to get anywhere unless we get past this type of thing:

Then stop misstating my comments, and stop responding in obtuse manners and with disingenuous questions. If you want to use condescending remarks to me and others, don't get pissy about it coming back your way. THAT'S childish and a waste of my time to read. Talk to me with respect, and you'll get the same measure back. Get smarmy and smart@** and talk down to me, and you'll find out pretty fast that I can give as good as I get. You don't get to speak down to other folks and demand a free-pass yourself.

Where have I misstated your comments? I've quoted you directly, near as I can tell.

Where have I been obtuse and disingenuous? I'm plenty intelligent enough to understand what you're talking about. I am neither slow, nor pretending to be. I am asking serious questions about your statements.

And where have I talked down to you, or been condescending in the least?

Show me, if you would. And be specific, please.

Because I don't feel I've been disrespectful in the least. I've questioned some of your statements, but I have not done so with insults or condescending remarks. I've simply said what
amounts to "I disagree with your logic", and I've presented my own viewpoints.

Wow, and that's what I've said all along, that beliefs are learned -- and taught. The main ways that bigoted beliefs are learned is through lies and false information. And I'm not going to get into a debate over relativity of "lies", we're discussing specific instances where we are talking about lies and deception.

"Wow"?

I never said beliefs weren't learned or taught, Rainbow.

You asked me this question earlier:

And for the people who did just oppose gay marriage across the board, you think they just oppose it without any actual beliefs about homosexuality or marriage as the underlying root cause of their opinion?

I responded to it. I'm unclear on why that warrants a "Wow". It's not like we ever disagreed on that point.

(b) If you fail to see how banning gay marriage is hateful on any level, then I suspect you support banning gay marriage. And I think that's a bigoted view. If I told you I think interracial marriage should be banned, you'd probably -- and rightly -- call that bigoted.

If you told me interracial marriage should be banned, I'd probably ask you why before I labeled your actions bigoted.

I'm actually all for gay marriage. But I don't believe that people who are against gay marriage are neccessarily against it out of hatred or bigotry toward homosexuals.

It's not simply denial of a right to enter into contracts based solely on not liking gay people, it is an attempt to deny gay couples access to one of the social institutions that is among the primary recognized symbols of love and family. Denying gay people the right to marry is about preventing a step that would legitimize their relationships and their love as acceptable and valid.

It's preventing them from being legally declared married. It's preventing a man from marrying a man, and a woman from marrying a woman. Ostensibly because people feel like marriage is a bond between a man and a woman, and that anything else is unnatural, and/or "wrong".

No one said "Gays can't have a family, love each other, be a devoted couple", or any of that.

They just can't have a piece of paper that recognizes them as "married" and the tax break (riiight, tax break) that comes along with it.

Where is the hatred of homosexuals themselves in that idea?

Hatred being:

Intense animosity or hostility.
a feeling of intense dislike; enmity

The symbolism is the overriding factor, and opposition to gay people achieving access to that symbol is based on nothing, NOTHING, but ignorant hatred against gay people. And that ignorant hatred leads to the ignorant hateful banning of gay marriage. And it's bigotry, and supporting it and believing it makes someone a bigot.

The symbolism of wanting marriage to be between a man and woman, as it has historically been?
How is society adhering to what has been taught as correct to them for thousands and thousands of years ignorant or hateful?

I got to that quote from you, and with a quick scan I confirmed that most of the rest of your post is either just more condescension or overt obtuseness.

Please provide some examples of these elements. I don't believe I intended any of that.

Fair enough on "confrontation".

 

[RdeemingRainbow]

Okay, olive-branch time. Gonna try to explain as clearly as I can, and explain why I reacted the way I did to some of what you said. It's a long post, and I apologize in advance to anyone bothered by that, and recommend they just skip it. And I'm going to decline to get into a debate about gay marriage here, since there's a thread for that. I'll be happy to discuss it with you there, instead, though.

So, for The Guard (and if you don't want to read all of this, either, I understand and we can just drop the whole thing, but hopefully you'll at least read the first few bits explaining my reaction to your posts, down to the little dividing-line):

And where have I talked down to you, or been condescending in the least?

Some examples:
"I really don't feel like marching around with signs is what changed things. But what do I know?"

"Yeah. That's why gay marriage was banned. It wasn't that a lot of people simply don't agree with it to begin with. It was because it would be taught in schools."

"I think some people need to get a thicker skin and think about stuff like this in context. I find it difficult to believe that truly intelligent and rational people would get personally offended by something so obviously wrong and ignorant." [Message: if someone gets personally offended, they must not be truly intelligent or rational -- if they disagree with you on this, you don't really believe they are intelligent]

You may not have meant these types of statements to seem condescending, but it seems like it's meant sarcastically and trying to be witty while casting my statements in a dismissive manner. That looks condescending, even if you didn't mean for it to seem so. Certainly my own responses that were sarcastic etc were taken that way by you, but I felt I was simply matching tone and style. I don't necessarily take it personally, but if that seems to be the way the back-and-forth is accepted as transpiring, I'll play along. It just seems unfair to do it but then to get offended if the other person does the same thing.

Also, there's the repeatedly asking "define [insert word]", "again, define [insert word]", "define [insert different word]". It's hard to have a discussion if I have to keep defining words when in fact the meaning should be clear from (a) the context, (b) the fact everybody here is using the same word and the meanings seem clear, (c) my actual explicit stating of the definition of the word where I'm using it. It looks like either missing what seem to be obvious points and statements, or intentionally missing the point in a sort of passive-aggressive manner. That may not be the intent, but it's just how it looks some of the time.

Add to that the restating of my comments. Several times, I say something like, "Confronting lies is part of confronting bigotry" but it gets replied to as if I said, "it's the ONLY way to confront bigotry".

There's been an entire discussion and debate for three and a half pages prior to your entry into the discussion, and the context and meaning of words like "confrontation" were apparently obvious to the rest of us who kept using it. But it feels like you're presenting it now as if I've been using some confusing mixture of the term that's stifling discussion. That's not really an accurate depiction of what's gone on, though.

When Majic Walrus asked about defining "great", it was a valid question since it had been used several times by different people who seemingly each may have meant something a bit different (or possibly radically different in some cases). Clarifying which one I was referring to -- especially since I created confusion due to actually mixing the references, intentionally, to make another point, and thus I was responsible for the misunderstanding of what I said and of my motives -- was necessary and worthwhile.

But here, for "confrontation", it's been used since page one by several people, and I don't think it's particularly confusing or hard to understand from the context what we are talking about. Add to this the explicit remarks that in fact DID define exactly what I meant -- describing exactly how I'd "confront" the father-in-law, or the examples of the exact types of "confrontations" from the Civil Rights Movement -- and I don't see why I'm asked repeatedly to define confrontation, or treated as if there's confusion due to me relying on some random or uncommon usage of the word.

When it seems so obvious, but someone acts as if they don't understand what I mean and ask me repeatedly to clarify even AFTER I clarified it, it is hard not to feel it's obtuse -- either actually not getting what seems so clear, or intentionally missing the point. You may not have meant it to come off like that, but it's just how it feels in the context of what's been said up to this point that should make the definitions obvious, in my opinion.

*BUT, having explained all of that, I apologize for outright accusing you of obtuseness in either form. I shouldn't let frustration or perception lead me to be blunt to the point of rudeness like that in this discussion/debate. If I was that frustrated or ticked off or whatever, I should've simply said I wasn't interested in continuing the discussion and moved on.

-------------------------------

I feel I've made very rational suggestions -- since the father-in-law's comments are very upsetting to Billy's wife (and since the mixture of Holocaust denial, claiming it's a Jewish plot, and praising Hitler are beyond just minor indicators of a single false belief or bad opinion), if the father-in-law states his disbelief in the Holocaust again then Billy could answer the guy's own question ("where's the evidence?") by just explaining two or three of the really undeniable pieces of evidence. In a polite way, a conversational way.

I didn't say Billy has an OBLIGATION to confront the man in this way, I suggested it was a good idea to do so and why I think SOME types of lies and bigotry in SOME types of settings should be confronted in whatever way works -- depending on who, what, where, and when. I've said this clearly for several pages of the thread now, and I don't feel it is a controversial or extreme viewpoint, or hard to understand.

On the broader question of confronting bigotry, I've said I feel that lies and false information are SOME of the MANY things that help create bigotry and/OR spread bigotry. So I feel that among the MANY ways of confronting bigotry IF and WHEN it needs to be confronted (and I don't feel it ALWAYS has to be confronted, as I've explained repeatedly) is to confront lies and false information IF and WHEN they are bad enough and IF and WHEN it's in certain situations, and IF and WHEN not confronting it could be a problem in the future.

This isn't a crazy concept, and I don't see why it would be treated as controversial or hard to understand. I honestly feel a bit absurd having to repeatedly argue in defense of such a common and obvious idea, in fact. I especially don't like stating these things clearly, and then having my statements turned into things far different from what I actually said -- particularly when the restatements suggest I'm saying "only" or "never" etc when I'm not.

The part that really seems to be the most contentious here is whether or not any of this applies if it's a family member who makes a bigoted remark or quotes false information/lies/etc. And in that context, I stated that I don't feel it's ALWAYS necessary to confront it, and that it depends on the who, what,where, when, etc. Lots of qualifiers, and again not at all a crazy or outlandish notion. But even this is treated as if I'm suggesting some extreme and narrow rule of some sort, contrary to everything I've said.

As for why lies and false information CAN sometimes be dangerous (again, I've said it depends on the who, what, where, when, why, etc, and that false information and lies are just ONE of MANY potential problems and dangers), this is also something that just doesn't at all seem like some outlandish concept or something that is hard to recognize in society. We see it in history (as I've point to), we see it in modern times (as I've pointed to), and I can't figure out why anyone would find this to be a controversial or seemingly hard to believe/understand concept.

I've said that I'm not implying a single lie -- like Holocaust denial -- is necessarily likely in and of itself, alone, to become a majority belief or one that alone will lead to Nazism etc. I said the point is that such things influence thoughts and behavior, can be part of what fuels bigotry or helps as one of the many things spreading bigotry, and that in fact such lies are not even necessarily meant to become a majority belief. They are instead often just meant to be part of a broad spectrum of other lies and beliefs and actions that combine to lay the foundation of an ideology or to appeal only to certain specific people (sometimes a fringe who form a base). The goal could be to generate questions, or to just lessen the strength of emotional reaction to an event like the Holocaust, or to just sell books that make money for a party/ideology so they can afford to buy OTHER things to help sustain their movement (or in the worst cases, to buy weapons or political power etc).

And sometimes, such lies can spread just far enough and combine with just enough other lies and beliefs, and then help create just enough additional question or bigotry, to influence broader public sentiments and/or sometimes create movements to gain passage of laws that bolster the views of the group behind the lies. That's where my example about gay marriage came into play.

Forget for a moment whether or not you do or don't support gay marriage. The ads against gay marriage contained factual inaccuracies that must have been inserted into the ads for a REASON -- the people who made the ads must have felt the lies would be helpful in either reinforcing the views of people who would vote against gay marriage, would be enough to create additional fear in those people to ensure they don't just get lazy about voting against gay marriage, and to potentially also sway anyone who might not be very inclined to vote or to support banning gay marriage in and of itself but who might tip toward voting against gay marriage if they think it will be a mandatory teaching assignment in schools.

Will most people believe that schools will be forced to teach first-graders about gay marriage? I seriously doubt it. Is that lie very likely to be believed by more than a handful of people, and even then only on voting day (since in the aftermath the truth is already being widely reported)? Nope. But for that one day, was the fairly ridiculous lie enough to help squeak out a narrow victory to ban gay marriage? Yes. The polling prior to that ad was tight but showed either that the ban would fail or that it was merely a tie. Outside of polling places, there were people who said they hadn't really cared too much and may not literally oppose gay marriage itself, but believed the ad about the new law forcing schools to teach gay marriage to kids.

It doesn't matter how you feel about gay marriage in the context of this debate. The point is to show how false information can spread even temporarily into society to just enough people to potentially affect the outcome of the vote. This case is relevant because it applies to the issue of passing laws that restrict the rights of a particular group of people -- you can say it is or isn't actual bigotry, but the point remains that a lie was spread just enough to help deny one minority group a right that everyone else enjoys.

Or if you don't like that example, there's marijuana. Passing anti-marijuana laws relied on extreme racist lies that claimed black men and Mexicans were using this "new" drug (it had actually been around for a long time, known as cannabis, but they started using the Latino word for the drug and pretended it was a new dangerous drug) that caused white women to have sex with non-white men. This was the propaganda that was used to spread anti-marijuana sentiment through the public in order to generate enough public support for passage of laws against marijuana.

Those lies helped reinforce and increase bigotry and hatred of blacks and Mexicans. Yes, the bigotry was already widespread, but the claim that now these men were using a dangerous drug (that supposedly made them violent and sexually crazed) to take white women caused far more instances of direct discrimination and racial violence. The propaganda repeatedly referenced "jazz clubs" as the place where black men were enticing white women with this dangerous drug, and as a result there were crackdowns and raids and other violence targeting those clubs and the people inside.

Then there's the Lou Dobbs example I mentioned earlier. When there are already so many people with anti-immigrant sentiments fueled by racist ideas (not saying ALL are fueled by racism, but some obviously are), what does it do to increase the perception of the danger of immigrants and in fact to create more beliefs that the immigrants are overtly evil and dangerous, when Lou Dobbs claims there's a secret plot to actually invade and take large portions of U.S. territory?

Doesn't that sound ridiculous? Mexico is sending immigrants who will act as an inside-army to help Mexico when it invades and takes over Texas. Insane. Yet Dobbs not only reported on it, he put up a map showing the territory Mexico was supposedly going to take. That map came from a white supremacist organization, a group who have been interviewed repeatedly on Dobb's program. The lie is outrageous and clearly not taken seriously by most people. But there it was, on Lou Dobb's program.

Did it convince most citizens of an imminent threat of invasion from Mexico? Obviously not. But did it further fuel hatred and fear among some people? Yes. Did some people who otherwise should know better, and who don't even have racist views about Latinos, wonder how true it was? Well, considering how many people believe all sorts of other things -- like that Iraq was behind 9-11, that some of the hijackers were from Iraq, that WMD were found in Iraq -- I don't think it's hard to believe some people saw the Dobb's report and at least wondered or were initially surprised and worried.

And did any of them act on it? Well, within a few weeks of that show, a guy showed up with a truck full of guns and bombs at an immigrants' rights rally. He believed Mexicans were going to invade the USA. Did he see Dobb's show? I don't know. Did Dobb's show add fuel to those types of beliefs, and pose at least the danger of setting off violence? I don't know. But is it crazy to be worried that it MIGHT? And is it an overreaction to say that just in CASE there's a chance, someone ought to go on TV and point out that the mainstream CNN show with Lou Dobbs that spread this absurd lie is indeed just a lie?

A guy walked into the Holocaust Memorial in DC and opened fire, killing a guard. The guy had written a book about Jewish conspiracy theories, and wrote online:

""At Auschwitz the 'Holocaust' myth became Reality, and Germany, cultural gem of the West, became a pariah among world nations."

I'm not saying that Holocaust denial turned him into a white supremacist, or that it is the sole issue driving his bigotry, or that it was the direct cause of his actions at the memorial. What I'm saying is that this is one of many lies that can turn simple bigotry into belief in conspiracies, which can fuel worse forms of bigotry, and can lead to the type of more intense paranoia and fear of the hated group that compels some types of people to pick up a gun and kill people. Or to beat someone. Or to spread that same set of lies and beliefs to OTHER people who might the type that develop a type of bigotry that incorporates suspicions and paranoia leading to tragic actions.

If we all agree that lies and beliefs and other influences all are part of the many things that lead to bigotry, can we also agree that some of those influences are more harmful than others and can make bigotry turn into something deeper and more dangerous over time? I think that if those lies are left unchallenged, it creates the impression in impressionable minds that there is more validity to them, and makes it more likely such people will believe the lie and help spread it. People act out on lies all of the time. Yes, bigotry is at the heart of it, but it's interconnected (as you said previously) and the lies reinforce the bigotry just as the bigotry reinforces the lie. Attempting to break that cycle in different ways can include challenging the lies, because sometimes it might make the difference. I think that's a rational option to consider, not as the ONLY option, but one of many depending on the situation and the lie etc.

How this applies to the father-in-law is more nuanced. He likely isn't going to go out and act on it -- but, it is true that the guy at the memorial hadn't gone out shooting anyone until he was 88 years old, after decades of being a bigot and becoming increasingly obsessed with Holocaust denial and paranoia about Jewish conspiracies. The father-in-law is getting this stuff from somewhere, and likely knows people who reinforce those views. He probably has read at some point literature espousing the views. He has a combination of such views that mirrors precisely the sort of beliefs held by people who HAVE acted out. Again, I'm not saying I think he WILL, but what if someone had long ago become concerned that the guy from the memorial might one day act out, and had tried to politely and slowly reach out to him? Would he be more likely to listen if it's a stranger, or if it's a family member? How it's approached matters, which is why I suggested waiting for him to bring it up and then being polite and not actually arguing in a hostile or aggressive manner.

I think that if he does at least realize it's not something he should bring up anymore to his immediate family, that could -- could, possibly -- influence how he thinks about the ways he acts (like speaking out to family) about such things. Anything that has some potential to get him thinking about the propriety of expressing those views, from the position of people he cares about and is more likely to at least allow to have their say, could be a good thing and an important thing. It might make him hesitate when he's about to say those things in front of other people somewhere, and that's the start of one of many ways to help stop the cycle of spreading the lies that reinforce and/or help found the basis of bigotry.

What if he says it some day in front of a kid who already has heard a few other bigoted things about Jews, or the kid says "In school they say the Holocaust happened" and thus leads to the man explaining how it's a Jewish plot etc. That's part of the start of instilling bigotry in kids.

The worst that happens? The guy gets argumentative as he has in the past, when it still didn't lead to a family melt-down, and Billy knows that okay, not even politely answering the guy's question is going to have any affect, and things revert to the status quo. Would it be bad to even at least try? It doesn't sound to me like there's any evidence -- based on past arguments they've had -- that it will create a situation that's worse than it is now, or causes major problems. I just don't understand the extent of the negative reaction to the idea and why there's a belief that it'll cause some big problem.

 

[RdeemingRainbow]

Oh, and The Guard:

When I wrote "Wow", I meant it in relation to the fact that we were in agreement on that point but that the agreement didn't seem to have been realized, that's all.