TEDx Talks
3 HN recommenders · recommended in 8 months, 2018–2022
18:53 · 13M views · Dec 8, 2017
Black musician Daryl Davis tells how a chance encounter led him to befriend Ku Klux Klan members and seek the source of racial hate. He argues that sitting down and talking with people can change them.
Recommended in moderation and deplatforming debates as a case for engagement and compassion over exclusion.
8 comments from Hacker News
Interesting question. I don't think these two concepts are in opposition. Of course, exposure to a toxic ideological viewpoint is poisonous for the recipient, and may in fact entice them to become more toxic themselves (if they are swayed by said reasoning). But a crucial part of the societal contract is to tolerate such toxic viewpoints so as to have the opportunity to redeem those who hold them. In other words, by eating a little bit of the poison ourselves, we are granted the opportunity to save that person from their own poison, by showing compassion and empathy towards them. People who have hate in their hearts are not entirely bad people. Everyone was once a child, everyone has experienced the mystery of simply existing, almost everyone has experienced love (whether from their parents or someone else), most people enjoy art and music. Evoking our shared humanity and showing compassion for others allows us to break down their toxic ideologies and even reform them to be beacons of compassion themselves. Perhaps the best and most compelling anecdote to promulgate this way of thinking is Daryl Davis, who, through his talents and love of music, has reformed many of the most hateful people in our country — members of the KKK. I would recommend this TED talk by him, titled "Why I, as a black man, attend KKK rallies" : this video . It really encapsulates the power of this viewpoint. The crucial element here is ensuring that we have channels of communication that allow for this sor
May I direct you to watch Daryl Davis's ted talk or really anything he speaks about. this video For context he is a black man that has gotten over a hundred leaders of the KKK, including former convicts to leave the Klan. Not by arguing with them, not be reasoning, not by showing them the effects of their behaviour, but instead by sitting down, talking with them and becoming their friend. In a nutshell this one man has probably done more to combat racism, than all the angry tweets on twitter combined.
Interestingly enough that is what Daryl Davis decided to do to start fighting racism, got over a dozen members, including a grand wizard, to leave the Klan. I'd recommend watching his TedTalk it really helped me understand how to better work with others, and how to bring about understanding. this video
> I'm not sure why people expect platforms that have ToS to be robotic about them. Being fair, being open, being honest isn't being "robotic". Treating people like more than something to exploit and throw away is what I would consider "robotic". The constant "it's a private company, brain off", that's what is robotic. > Companies are run by people. People get uncomfortable when you become known for spraying around racial epithets, and some are not going to want to work with you. Yeah, people. Not necessarily adult people. Take this man, for example: this video Do you honestly think you know or have anything he doesn't? Wouldn't you rather think it's the other way around? If you stand aside as mobs try to kill free speech on the internet, you're banking on them winning, on there never being a time where, if you can't show clear proof that you resisted, nobody wanting to work with you. I doubt you would just say "fair enough". I don't think you'd consider that a humane society just because the majority might claim it is. > If I'm using some vendor and find out that I really don't like what their public persona is doing, I'm going to reevaluate that relationship. This isn't just a vendor. We're talking about companies that provide services that really, realistically, should be utilities. You shouldn't get your water turned off for calling obese people names, or your electricity turned off for saying Hitler was right. That's a stone age level regression that not just shows a level o
Kind of reminds me of something i read recently about the more tolerant you become, the less your brain may function or else you risk offending. That largely speaking the social media censorship is not about influencing politics but rather trying not to offend. The far left and far right agree with the paradox for the opposite reason. In terms of the paradox... it's not a paradox at all. You have to consider the contemporary context of the assertion. 1945 was post-ww2 and tolerating the lutherans early on eventually evolved to something terrible: [LINK] At what point in your society do you no longer tolerate their intolerance and potentially stop a holocaust? If you do it too soon, you're going to be rife with censoring your political opponents and you have the new problem that they still overthrow your government. Every protest you end up in great fear of imminent revolution. If you do it too late, they are already in power. This is the challenge and also why Jordan Peterson says you would have been a nazi. [LINK] The problem. Lutheran antisemitism had built up in germany over hundreds of years. Hitler was in party leadership for around 10 years before forming government. If Otto Wels had done anything to stop intolerance he would have only delayed the inevitable. Coming back to the paradox, what exactly is the paradox? Being purely tolerant isn't in the books. No society is tolerant of murders or pedos. Being a free speech absolutist doesn't actually allow slander or fighti