How do you prefer your racists: Open or anonymous?

[ehrnst]

When bigots stay anonymous, in their online groups and with their like-minded friends, their bubble protects them from a public reckoning.


Sure, there is a school of thought that publicity and a public forum only normalizes their hatred and gives bigots the spotlight they crave.

“Media coverage would only give them the attention they were hoping for, thereby encouraging them to do more of the same,” wrote Elizabeth Moore, a former member of the Canadian white extremist group, The Heritage Front, in a piece published this week in Maclean’s. “The only way to successfully deal with those who deal in hate, some argue, is to smother them with silence.”

But, given her own experiences, she disagrees.

“It is a reasonable theory, but it doesn’t work in practice. As a former extremist, I know this firsthand,” she wrote. Going public made her understand how out-of-whack their movement was. “They were eventually stopped not through silence, but by exposing them and confronting them at every turn.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/how-do-you-prefer-your-racists-open-or-anonymous/2018/08/09/890482ac-9be0-11e8-843b-36e177f3081c_story.html

[FSogol]

1. I prefer them in the past. They should crawl back to the 19th century. n/t

[Zambero]

2. Open, discredited, and devoid of any influence

Exposing hatred is the first step toward defeating it.

[ck4829]

6. It's time for the second step.

[sheshe2]

3. Let them out themselves. They will pay the price.

When they are outed, when they put their real faces and their real names behind their sickening ideas, they suffer the consequences meted out by civilized society.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/how-do-you-prefer-your-racists-open-or-anonymous/2018/08/09/890482ac-9be0-11e8-843b-36e177f3081c_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.7ccf6f5c6ee1

[Zoonart]

4. With fava beans and a nice chianti.

Is that wrong?


Seriously, though... I prefer them out in the open. It is difficult to fight a hidden enemy.

[unblock]

5. scorned and ridiculed.

the key is what the reaction is. if they are covered as a movement or as just one side's point of view, that's a real problem and the disease spreads. the typical media reaction is to cover the bigotry and simply go "wow". unfortunately, a jaw on the floor doesn't do nearly enough to stop the spread.

they need to be scorned and ridiculed and mocked. the treatment bigotry gets from samantha bee, trever noah, jim jefferies, e.g., needs to be the national reaction to displays of bigotry. they need to be called ignorant idiots, suckers, and fools. not to mention evil.


then, of course, the logical reaction for them would be to go back into hiding.

so it's not that i prefer them to be anonymous, it's just that when they're anonymous, we're more likely to be winning.

[ck4829]

7. How about... Not at all?

I think we're talking about a luxury pretty much, I'm white, Elizabeth Moore is white, I get the sense that people who are debating this don't have to have a core visceral worry about the racist at the end of the day.

When racists act like the racists they are, there is a backlash; they lose jobs, get kicked out of school, etc. Thank God there is that still, but what happens if there isn't?

We're being given a false dichotomy.

[Blue_true]

9. Open by far.

The ones that hide it, but carryout racial discrimination are far more damaging and dangerous to society than loudmouths that parade around.

[GulfCoast66]

10. Open and loud.

The we get to watch them lose their jobs, friends and standing in the community.

Public shame can help shape public perception.

[Bettie]

11. The one good that came out of the last election cycle

is that I know who is who in my life.

I know which people are worth my time and energy and which are simply racist people who I am forced to deal with sometimes.

Better to know. Even when it hurt to find out some people who I thought were decent are, well, not decent at all.