AIBU worry that the next generation are not actually that "accepting"

[Bonsaibreaker]

Long story short but chatting with 14 yo DD this evening about many subjects and a family members "views" came up. For background this family member in my view is racist and homophobic.
DD stated FM should be cancelled. Never allowed to speak, voice their opinion ever.

I pointed out to DD that freedom of speech means just that. We can all hold opinions others don't like but we are all free to voice, protest and gather regardless.
DD is of an age where discussion/debate is not an option apparently and if you are offended by another's views you just cancel them instead of debating or accepting their view as different to yours.

This worries me as instead of challenging different opinions the next generation are just silencing them.

YANBU = yes we are growing an intolerant society

YABU = They deserve to be cancelled

I find the people arguing the "debate never changes anyone's opinion" quite strange.

Are they saying that they have never changed their minds on anything? That if they heard a persuasive argument for something they didn't currently believe in that they would just adamantly refuse to change their beliefs?

Racism and homophobia are not up for debate. They are to be smashed. Fuck that. Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequence. End of discussion.

@NotDavidTennant

I find the people arguing the "debate never changes anyone's opinion" quite strange.

Are they saying that they have never changed their minds on anything? That if they heard a persuasive argument for something they didn't currently believe in that they would just adamantly refuse to change their beliefs?

Well, quite.

It's obvious that the people who like and agree with cancellation have ALL the right opinions and would never need to be cancelled. Therefore people that are cancelled must be bad and not listened to.
They couldn't possibly listen or even debate what someone else has to say and maybe change their position or encourage someone else to change theirs. Much better to put their fingers in their ears and ignore while revelling in their correctness.

They are to be smashed. Fuck that. Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequence. End of discussion

Lovely way to go about preaching tolerance

I find the people arguing the "debate never changes anyone's opinion" quite strange.

Same here. That's not been my experience.

Are they saying that they have never changed their minds on anything? That if they heard a persuasive argument for something they didn't currently believe in that they would just adamantly refuse to change their beliefs?

That's what I've noticed. Some people would rather die or go silent when there's nothing else to say than say "you know what, I think you have a point. I disagree with you on the other point but I can agree on this one". For these people, it"s all or nothing. In or out. With us or against us. No middle ground. So I'm not surprised some would think debate never changes minds. It can only change minds when people come into a debate with an open mind and an aim to listen to each other, not just reply; when you don't see an enemy for life but a person with a ludicrous/hateful/ignorant opinion on something, which can be changed.

That said, I also think people can decide to ignore who they choose to ignore for their own reason. It isn't always the best course of action but neither is debating for years with the same person about the same views.

They are to be smashed. Fuck that. Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequence. End of discussion

You're sending them right into the arms of the alt right with that kind of attitude. So long as you're happy with that.

And as the prevailing understanding of what actually constitutes racism and homophobia evolves all the time, how do you know you won't be 'smashed' in time for some of your views?

We had early warning of this in that incident with Gordon Brown and the woman who tried to talk to him about immigration. She wasn't a racist, she had legitimate concerns, but he pigeonholed her as a racist and fobbed her off. Refusing to talk to people about certain things doesn't mean they stop having those concerns. It means an opportunity to exchange information and views is lost and the person written off as a bigot is left feeling slighted. No wonder the far right was able to win so many people over

I agree. If you keep closing people down and don't engage with their views, you end up with Brexit and Trump.

If someone expressed concern about immigration they were being racist. Expressing concern about pressure on amenities is not racist but nobody would listen (and it didn't help that the EU didn't listen to Cameron when he tried to explain the concerns, either).

There is also a difference between out and out racism and using an expression like "whiter than white" that people may not realise is racist until you point it out to them. Same with the word "spooky" which is considered racist in the US as it was used about black air force personnel in WW2. I didn't know that until this week.

There are some issues where there are shades of grey - eg the trans issue because of the impact on biological women and teens and young adults needs to learn that there are shades of grey. And they also need to learn that not everyone agrees with them.

how do you know you won't be 'smashed' in time for some of your views?

I think many people cannot grasp this important concept. Maybe they are too young to understand this, they need more life experience

@NotDavidTennant

I find the people arguing the "debate never changes anyone's opinion" quite strange.

Are they saying that they have never changed their minds on anything? That if they heard a persuasive argument for something they didn't currently believe in that they would just adamantly refuse to change their beliefs?

I agree - when I was a teen I agreed with capital punishment. I don't anymore. People do change their views but most MNers like to believe the opposite.

Some people won't change their minds, but many will. Or you may at least sew the seeds of doubt which will make them keep any abhorrent views to themselves. We all live in bubbles and need our views challenging. There are plenty of things I've learnt on MN eg about invisible disabilities.

I think many people cannot grasp this important concept. Maybe they are too young to understand this, they need more life experience

I think you're right

Look at it this way though.
Uncle "Be careful of those black lads in Xtown, they're all in gangs" OK racist

Uncle "Gangs are a major problem in Xtown and statistically males of Afro-Carribean descent age 14 to 26 are more likely to be caught up in it. So,
Dniece remain vigilant while in X Town."

Is that racist? Some would argue yes, so shut up.

Some would say no, naming the problem is the first step to solving it.
Some would say it's not correct to conflate criminality with criminal behaviour, poverty and socio economic deprivation are the relevant factors.
Some would say its victim blaming to expect the teen girl to adjust her behaviour for fear of trouble and its the trouble makers who should be taught better.

Those are good arguments and I think a lot of people would be receptive to them and be willing to think more deeply if presented with them. Not everyone no, and possibly not OP's FM, but on the scale of a country I think enough would to make a difference at the ballot box.

I don't blame OP's daughter for not wanting to debate Uncle. Or any individual who is sick and tired of it. Maybe changing one old man's mind doesn't matter in the scheme of things.

But societally, nobody wanting to debate anything contentious or nuanced is a disaster, imo, how will we ever get to the root of a particular problem if we can't dissect all the spiralling factors that go into it? That's what's worrying about many of the younger generation.

Jeez stupid typo - meant to say it's not correct to conflate race with criminal behaviour

Those are good arguments and I think a lot of people would be receptive to them and be willing to think more deeply if presented with them.

Exactly. These are the type of conversations we should be having if we want society to actually evolve.

Not 'smash them'

@mustlovegin

They are to be smashed. Fuck that. Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequence. End of discussion

Lovely way to go about preaching tolerance

Oh, it’s the ‘not tolerating intolerance IS intolerance’ line. Total bollocks.

@NotDavidTennant

I find the people arguing the "debate never changes anyone's opinion" quite strange.

Are they saying that they have never changed their minds on anything? That if they heard a persuasive argument for something they didn't currently believe in that they would just adamantly refuse to change their beliefs?

OP has been politely debating this man for TWENTY YEARS and he still thinks ‘two blokes together isn’t natural.’ I mean at a certain point you need to write someone off. Otherwise we spend our whole lives stroking Donald Trump’s hair and saying ‘oh honey no, women are people with equal rights. Oh I know, not in your opinion. Never mind I’ll try again tomorrow.’

At a certain point you just need to say firmly ‘no. That’s not right and I’m not continuing with this.’

@NotDavidTennant

I find the people arguing the "debate never changes anyone's opinion" quite strange.

Are they saying that they have never changed their minds on anything? That if they heard a persuasive argument for something they didn't currently believe in that they would just adamantly refuse to change their beliefs?

I think changing anybody's mind on anything of actual importance is pretty difficult. Human beings are extremely stubborn.

Not that it's impossible. But I've got better things to do with my life than waste time trying to achieve those rare occasions where someone is actually receptive to new ideas.

That's understandable on an individual level.

But I think op was making the broader point that on a societal level you cant just ignore or cancel people who don't think like you do.

They vote. So either convince them of the best ideas or take away their franchise. Because cancelling great swathes of people for wrong think won't cancel the wrong think.

First of all, fair play to you @Bonsaibreaker for keeping coming back to the thread and responding to people - even people who are twisting what you are saying.

However, I can't agree with you saying this is "the norm" at all:

It's the norm not her version.
No debate.
No opposing opinions allowed.
No voice unless it agrees.
No debate.
If an opinion thought or view will offend anyone then its the wrong view.

I speak with lots of young people, some of whom I am related to and some not, and this isn't "normal" for any of them. They will all engage and challenge views that they feel are fundamentally wrong. I don't come across this idea of "cancelling" at all.

@mustlovegin

how do you know you won't be 'smashed' in time for some of your views?

I think many people cannot grasp this important concept. Maybe they are too young to understand this, they need more life experience

This is the part some seem to be missing. Self reflection is key. Anyone who thinks they have all the answers is a little bit dangerous. As the trans debate has shown, an absolute attitude to shutting down intolerance might be the banner but in reality it is the exact opposite. 1984 indeed. Issues that have been raised here as racist would not be seen that way in a working class neighbourhood. Council housing access and priority lists stand out. The veteran memes are simplistic but refer to genuine concerns. Inner city, working class neighbourhoods are where you see the most widespread mixing of cultures. If you are not from that demographic, it might be wise to think about why people are saying what they are saying before jumping in with labels. I honestly see more casual racism from middle class, left leaning liberals than any other group. There was an example earlier on the thread. There seems to be a patronising we speak for all black people attitude.

@goodgirlinchachaheels

Racism and homophobia are not up for debate. They are to be smashed. Fuck that. Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequence. End of discussion.

Yes, this is where you end up with white middle class twats telling a black guy who grew up under segregation laws that he is a racist who doesn't understand privilege because he doesn't toe their line about what counts as racism.

Yes, this is where you end up with white middle class twats telling a black guy who grew up under segregation laws that he is a racist who doesn't understand privilege because he doesn't toe their line about what counts as racism.

But in this specific case this isn’t what’s happening. The uncle is telling a young mixed race girl that gay people are unnatural and gangs are only black people/only black peoples commit gang crime. I can see why she wouldn’t want to continue to listen to that - I wouldn’t either!

@Kanaloa

Yes, this is where you end up with white middle class twats telling a black guy who grew up under segregation laws that he is a racist who doesn't understand privilege because he doesn't toe their line about what counts as racism.

But in this specific case this isn’t what’s happening. The uncle is telling a young mixed race girl that gay people are unnatural and gangs are only black people/only black peoples commit gang crime. I can see why she wouldn’t want to continue to listen to that - I wouldn’t either!

Not wanting to hear about it is fine. Saying he should be cancelled and never have his opinions on anything listened to ever, is not.

Nobody has to debate anybody; nobody has to listen in silence to someone they disagree with, unless it's a formal debate or panel show and you're in the audience or a panel member awaiting your turn.

Freedom of speech is no guarantee everyone will be listened to; people are free to walk away if they don't like what they hear or aren't interested.

And of course intelligent, thoughtful people are open to growth and changing their ideas if they acquire new experiences or information and encounter reasoned arguments.

The trouble comes when ideas and attitudes are fixed and the person is always on transmit, never receive. That can be at any age, but is commonest, in my experience, in the very old and very young.

If FM is going to spout racist tropes in someone else's house, the householder has a right to change the subject or chide FM for being repetitive.

I've found it helpful to say something like, "We've heard your thoughts on this many times and you've heard ours. If you haven't anything new to share, perhaps we could just assume nothing's changed and talk about something that new?" And introduce a topic.

But 16yo shouldn't be left to tackle racist talk alone, lest it be perceived as teenage rebellious nonsense that nobody else holds with. FM should be the one feeling isolated in their views, not DD.

And from what op says in her updates, the daughter hasn’t said that. OP says in the opening post that she has said that, but later states that her daughter in fact doesn’t want to ‘cancel’ the uncle but she (the op) thinks her daughter should ‘debate’ him. That’s the issue.

I do think the silencing culture is an outgrowth of SM practices where you can block to your heart's content and eliminate voices that disagree with you. It's taking this entitlement and trying to apply it in real life that creates the problems.