What if You Found Out That a Friend Was Racist or Otherwise Hatefully Prejudiced?

[Debater Slayer]

If someone genuinely was hateful then that might be a problem, but a bit prejudiced or mildly bigoted I don’t really care.

Most folk with diverse friendship groups understand that prejudice and mild bigotry are pretty common across the board.

What are your thoughts on the idea of challenging or discussing prejudiced, ignorant, racist, etc., comments if a friend makes them? For example, many people believe that one should not just laugh along or stay silent if their friend makes a joke that includes racial slurs or makes light of sexual assault. What do you think of this belief?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How would you determine whether they were on the journey or married to their status quo?

Ultimately, it would come down to whether I see change.

 

[Debater Slayer]

By the way, to everyone who has answered here so far: I enjoy asking questions to explore the various perspectives I encounter on this forum, hence my responses here. I know I have asked many questions, so thank you to everyone who has answered either the OP or later questions.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Ultimately, it would come down to whether I see change.

What if the change took decades, in which case it wouldn't be visible to others until much later in life? An example that I think demonstrates the point is how some people convert to or away from a given religion in their 50s or 60s or drastically change their voting choices around that age.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What if the change took decades, in which case it wouldn't be visible to others until much later in life?

Decades would probably be too long for me. The hateful attitudes would start to create distance immediately. There would only be so long that I could give some benefit of the doubt.

An example that I think demonstrates the point is how some people convert to or away from a given religion in their 50s or 60s or drastically change their voting choices around that age.

Heh... I'm 47. For people my age, "50s" isn't that far off.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Suppose you found out that one of your friends was racist, homophobic, anti-trans, or hateful toward any given religious group. How would you respond to that, and how would you handle the friendship?

I would be surprised to "find out" such in a friend.
I don't just name anyone a friend. I know them well. And in my experience, hateful thoughts like racism etc are kind of hard to keep secret and will out themselves in general social behavior pretty much automatically. In how people are treated etc. Such tribalistic / hateful attitudes usually also don't exist in a vaccuum in someone's psychological profile.

I can't say I ever found out that a "friend" was actually some closet homophobe or racist. It's not the type of psychological profile I find appealing nore does it come with personality traits that sit well with me.

Such people are off-putting to me and I tend to end frequenting / socializing with them long before such hatefullness comes explicitely to the foreground.


But for the sake of argument, say I was so wrong about someone that this still occurs and catches me by surprise...
Well, it certainly would be such a turn-off that the person will fade out of my social circle pretty naturally.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The above applies to my experience and perspective too, as I said in post #50, except that I also used to have views that I grew up with that were hateful toward certain groups until I was exposed to different ideas and discussed as well as debated them (which started back in 2011, when I joined RF).

What would you do if you saw strong reasons to believe that someone didn't have the propensity for growth in terms of ignorance or prejudice even well into their adulthood—for example, in their 30s to 50s (or older)?

I don't think it's ever that clear, and I don't think true growth is linear. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt on most things, and I daresay this would be the same, so if I had cause to think they might improve, and the harm they were doing in the meantime was more indirect, AND they had lots of other good qualities, I suspect I'd overlook it.

Who do you see as "some of the strongest proponents of speech control or thought control"? What characterizes their beliefs, and how specifically do they try to control speech or thought (e.g., through legal coercion, social means, or something else)?

I wasn't really focusing on a particular group. I think in any community, including online ones, you end up with a mainstream set of opinions. What varies more is how non-mainstream opinions are treated. To me, there is a markedly stronger push by the left to control speech than there was in my youth, mostly through social means. It was generally the right trying to do that when I was young (and they obviously continue to do so). It is something I see via my HR department at work, through the social functions organized, through our email signatures, and through diversity training. I remain unconvinced we really understand what impact these things have. Half jokingly, I say that reading the bible made me an atheist. It's not quite true, but certainly the more time I spent around churchgoers and church people as a youth, the less evidence of God I was aware of. I don't say that to suggest anything about religion writ large (moreso just the church I attended) but certainly compelling people to think and act and talk in certain ways doesn't mean they think differently. I was able to both win all my little prayer badges when I was in CEBS, and also become more and more convinced the Christian God wasn't literally real.

Yes, I intentionally focused on hateful prejudice, although I realize that in some cases—but certainly not always—it overlaps with a degree of ignorance or fear.

What would you do if a hateful person refused dialogue?

Write them off, basically.

Also, what if they hated groups other than white males, atheists, or any other groups you were part of?

Who knows? But I suppose if they hate on a group I belong to, but at the same time we are maintaining a relationship of sorts, it would suffice as evidence that their hatred is not irredeemable. Hence the distinction around groups I belong to. It has nothing to do with the value of those groups being any more than other groups.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Decades would probably be too long for me. The hateful attitudes would start to create distance immediately. There would only be so long that I could give some benefit of the doubt.



Heh... I'm 47. For people my age, "50s" isn't that far off.

50 this year, for me. Which sounds a LOT older than 49.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I don't think it's ever that clear, and I don't think true growth is linear. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt on most things, and I daresay this would be the same, so if I had cause to think they might improve, and the harm they were doing in the meantime was more indirect, AND they had lots of other good qualities, I suspect I'd overlook it.

I agree it's not that clear outside hypotheticals. (I believe way too many variables are involved for things to be so clear and neat in reality, as I mentioned in post #50.)

Are there any situations or scenarios in which you see yourself trying to cause or contribute to the kind of growth you're talking about, or do you prefer not to get involved in that specific way?

I wasn't really focusing on a particular group. I think in any community, including online ones, you end up with a mainstream set of opinions. What varies more is how non-mainstream opinions are treated. To me, there is a markedly stronger push by the left to control speech than there was in my youth, mostly through social means. It was generally the right trying to do that when I was young (and they obviously continue to do so). It is something I see via my HR department at work, through the social functions organized, through our email signatures, and through diversity training. I remain unconvinced we really understand what impact these things have. Half jokingly, I say that reading the bible made me an atheist. It's not quite true, but certainly the more time I spent around churchgoers and church people as a youth, the less evidence of God I was aware of. I don't say that to suggest anything about religion writ large (moreso just the church I attended) but certainly compelling people to think and act and talk in certain ways doesn't mean they think differently. I was able to both win all my little prayer badges when I was in CEBS, and also become more and more convinced the Christian God wasn't literally real.

I certainly agree that acting and talking in certain ways and trying to forcibly change someone's thinking doesn't mean their thinking will change. I think it can be a complex issue to figure out how to set some limits in a given environment where the limits may not change someone's thinking but still need to be enforced to maintain a baseline of a specific atmosphere—such as professionalism in an academic setting, a welcoming climate in a club, civility in a diverse environment, etc.

If you don't mind elaborating on the examples you listed, I'm curious to know more about how such things manifest in the HR department at your work, the social functions, email signatures, diversity training, etc. For example, at what point would you say that such things go beyond a reasonable or necessary management and shaping of a specific work environment's atmosphere and ethos and into the territory of excessive monitoring or compulsion?

Who knows? But I suppose if they hate on a group I belong to, but at the same time we are maintaining a relationship of sorts, it would suffice as evidence that their hatred is not irredeemable. Hence the distinction around groups I belong to. It has nothing to do with the value of those groups being any more than other groups.

I can see where you're coming from. Thanks for elaborating!

I didn't take your comment to be an implication that any group had more or less value than others, especially since I know you well enough to know that's not how you see things. I was just interested in reading further thoughts from you.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Which views do you consider to cross a line enough to warrant trying to, as you put it, "educate/reform the friend back toward reality"? For example, since there are various manifestations and degrees of racial hatred, at which point would you find that your friend needed to be talked to about it?

Basically, when they go beyond subjective opinion/feelings, and stray from reality.
So a friend telling me that he prefers Swedish blondes, or petite Japanese women, etc... is just his personal tastes.
But him saying something like, "I can't date [enter one demographic group here] women, they're all cheats and thieves!"
That would get a, "Woah! dude! There's history behind a blindingly generalized statement like that. What happened to you that brought this on?"

.... Or ...

'How many Germans does it take to screw in a light-bulb?' "One German for 100 bulbs! They are very efficient!" *funny* *cute*
... vs .... 'Germans are so efficient. They're like machines. That's why, even to this day, they all think they're the ruling race!' *full stop* *need to talk*


If you're looking only at degrees of hatred, I think, as a friend, I would at least ask about even small things.
i.e. - Friend says, "I want to travel the world, and see different cultures. But I don't want to go to India. I can do without that."
To me, that is a point where the conversation would open up into why they "can do without" Indian culture. And we could walk through their thoughts on the topic.

 

[Revoltingest]

I would discard them. You can't be racist and go to Heaven. Imagine these white supremacists.. "Jesus was white."

Do you have only friends who'll make it into Heaven?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

What words would you find to be seriously violent and dehumanizing toward others?

It's not about specific words, but more viewing entire groups as subhuman, not worthy of dignity.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What words would you find to be seriously violent and dehumanizing toward others?

The question wasn't addressed to me, I know, but I find that some pretty mainstream religious beliefs can be reasonably described as seriously violent and dehumanizing toward non-believers.

I don't think it's a coincidence that I don't count anyone with these beliefs as my friend.

 

[Kathryn]

If they didn't express their beliefs around you or act unkindly toward anyone in your presence but you still knew they had hateful prejudice toward others based on race, what would you do?

Depends on several factors, such as how they treat others around me, and the level of the friendship. This is purely conjecture though since I don't know of any friends of mine with hateful prejudices. I do call out anyone who espouses hateful prejudice anywhere, anytime.

You know what though? I am thinking of someone I get together with every single week. She used the N word around me recently. But then she is single and often dates African American men (she's Lebanese for what it's worth). She knows my kids are biracial, and that they are "mine" meaning that I (gasp) HAD SEX WITH AN AFRICAN AMERICAN MAN AT LEAST FOUR TIMES (we were married eleven years so I had sex a lot more than that with him). I was shocked. She then proceeded to tell me that her family would never accept an African American man she had been dating. She has sex with people she dates so I am pretty sure she's had sex with AA people before. I just can't understand her reasoning at all. I mean, maybe she hasn't truly fallen in love with AA people before, I don't know. But I can't imagine letting family have that much influence over you. By the way, for the record, I am no longer married to the AA man, though our issues had nothing at all to do with the color of his skin. And my Southern family was always accepting of him and fine with it. So there's that.

I remember one time I was chasing my Asian (adopted) brother around and around the car in a church parking lot, and chanting "N, N, N!" (saying the entire word, however) simply because I knew it was something "bad" to say to him, not because I knew what it meant (I had no idea). and the next thing I knew, my daddy had me up against the side of the car and he was all up in my face saying, "I better NEVER hear that word come out of your mouth again."

But here is the thing - I would never, never be friends with anyone who was rude to anyone else. I mean, there are just some things I will not tolerate. And I don't think my Lebanese friend actually has a mean bone in her body. But do I think it's ignorant? Yes.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I agree it's not that clear outside hypotheticals. (I believe way too many variables are involved for things to be so clear and neat in reality, as I mentioned in post #50.)

Are there any situations or scenarios in which you see yourself trying to cause or contribute to the kind of growth you're talking about, or do you prefer not to get involved in that specific way?

I try to help everyone around me grow, to be honest, but my approach is very low-key/subtle. I'm about as far from preachy as you'll get.

I certainly agree that acting and talking in certain ways and trying to forcibly change someone's thinking doesn't mean their thinking will change. I think it can be a complex issue to figure out how to set some limits in a given environment where the limits may not change someone's thinking but still need to be enforced to maintain a baseline of a specific atmosphere—such as professionalism in an academic setting, a welcoming climate in a club, civility in a diverse environment, etc.

I think mostly that baseline should be around behaviour, rather than thought. We commonly treat the two as the same now, I would say.

If you don't mind elaborating on the examples you listed, I'm curious to know more about how such things manifest in the HR department at your work, the social functions, email signatures, diversity training, etc. For example, at what point would you say that such things go beyond a reasonable or necessary management and shaping of a specific work environment's atmosphere and ethos and into the territory of excessive monitoring or compulsion?

I think we're just slightly missing each other on this. Most of the things the HR department is pushing, and our company 'promotes' are well and truly already things I'm supportive of. Having some half-assed rollout of boilerplate HR material promoting gender and racial diversity, and then forcing everyone to sit through it to get a ticked box offends me (mildly...miffs me perhaps) on many levels. As an example;

1) The teacher in me thinks any 'training' not coupled with some level of training needs analysis or training outcome assessment is bollocks.
2) The cynical consultant in me figures this is a good way to avoid future litigation issues, rather than an opportunity to train anyway.
3) The manager in me wonders how these programs are coupled with hiring policy. At no time have I been told to hire anyone other than the best person for the job, and at no time have I have been told to promote anyone but the best person for the job, both of which are good (I guess) but that being the case, but what is the point here?
4) The Australian government is now forcing release of gender pay figures for companies above a certain size (the one I work for included). There is no nuance with that, it's a single wage figure for men, and a single one for women. Nothing about equal pay for equal work, nothing about promotion of better opportunities, etc. Just everyone for one gender reduced to a single number, and everyone for the other gender reduced to the other. Meanwhile we'll get told that people are whatever gender they wish to be, and should be identified by whatever pronoun they wish, and we should have that as part of our email signature.
5) There is no measurement or recognition of increased diversity in teams. My team has both substantially increased female representation, and increased racial and sexuality diversity (at least to public appearances). Two people have been promoted out of my team to team leader/management positions, both female, and another 2 to senior operational roles (one male and one female).

So...do I think a team of diverse individuals is best, and that there is scope (within my industry at least) to better take advantage of female talent available? Yep, I have for as long as I've been in the industry.
Do any of our half-assed 'Women at work' lunches, rainbox flags on our sigs, pronoun identification, government mandated expressions of gender-based 'pay gaps' or diversity training help? No. At best it's a nothingburger. At worst, it can be divisive I think.

But hey, it lets us avoid litigation, and gives our HR team something that is 'clearly' making the world a better place, but should never be properly planed based on need, nor measured based on outcome. So there's that.

I can see where you're coming from. Thanks for elaborating!

I didn't take your comment to be an implication that any group had more or less value than others, especially since I know you well enough to know that's not how you see things. I was just interested in reading further thoughts from you.

Yup, all good. Just trying to be clear. My words could have been read either way, so sometimes I'm just trying to be clearer for those who don't know me.

Oooh...and for any reading on, I'm aware I said 'I'm as far from preachy as you can get' and then I went off on a rant about HR actions and policies...lol
I figure this is a safe space to vent.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The question wasn't addressed to me, I know, but I find that some pretty mainstream religious beliefs can be reasonably described as seriously violent and dehumanizing toward non-believers.

I don't think it's a coincidence that I don't count anyone with these beliefs as my friend.

I agree with the fact that they can be dehumanizing (the violent ones are a little less mainstream in my experience, but I get that in some parts of the world that is not the case).

Targetted at me, or even atheists, I tend to worry less about, to be honest. I'm not justifying that, I just do. It's kinda...'Oh, that old chestnut...'
I figure if they're talking to me, they must on some levels not hate atheists. I'd always make sure people espousing such stuff knew I was an atheist.

I had a friend (actually best man at my wedding) who went from Catholicism (Italian background) to born-again Baptist. His sister developed a major illness (MS) and that had a lot of social impacts on her, and looked pretty extreme for a while due to her being non-responsive to some treatments. She connected with another woman, and they started a relationship. My mate stopped praying for her, stopped talking to her, and basically wrote her off. Even understanding he figured I was consigning myself to Hell due to my atheism, is was a bridge too far to see him treat his own sister (who I know well) like that. I'll still say hi to him, might see him once a year, but that's it.

He has since made up with his sister, and he has no idea how deeply that effected me, but it really did.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I would be surprised to "find out" such in a friend.

Happened to me many years ago. Homophobic jokes weren't uncommon back in the 80s, and I went to a rough high school, by any standards. Not a good idea to come out at my high school, so there really weren't obviously gay people there. Which meant me and my friends weren't exposed to openly gay people.
I went to Uni, and was exposed to a lot of diversity. This particular guy left school early, and worked in a factory. We remained friends, and in my 4th year at Uni, he got me a pretty sweet packing job at his factory. Great hours and pay (boring work).
Anyway, he found out Michael Stipe was gay, and stopped playing REM. It became a major bone of contention between us, since I had gay friends, and knew for a fact one of the guys reporting to him was gay also. I was careful not to out that guy, obviously, but what had seemed like ignorance/teenage jokes moved to a darker place, at least in my mind.

It was also confusing as hell to me. The guy wasn't at all religious. Anyway...we were close friends, probably had been for about 6 years. Surprised the hell out of me.

 

[Augustus]

What are your thoughts on the idea of challenging or discussing prejudiced, ignorant, racist, etc., comments if a friend makes them? For example, many people believe that one should not just laugh along or stay silent if their friend makes a joke that includes racial slurs or makes light of sexual assault. What do you think of this belief?

Things which are jokes I’d interpret in context. Some jokes are based on being witty combined with shock value, and I wouldn't be offended by a joke or any comment not made to be taken seriously assuming those it was made to all understand that.

Growing up people would make fun of whatever characteristics related to their friends, there wasn't a taboo about making jokes about people's ethnicity whether you were white, black, East Asian, South Asian or of Scottish, English, French, Indian, Pakistani, Chinese, etc. descent someone would make fun of you for it.

In terms of challenging comments nowadays, if any friends made actually bigoted comments, folk wouldn't try to 'educate' them but would probably just make fun of them and mock them about it.

The only exception is when I moved overseas, some of my non-Western friends might make comments that they didn't realise could be considered offensive. In that case I might explain how they could be interpreted in case they were around others who could be offended by them.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Things which are jokes I’d interpret in context. Some jokes are based on being witty combined with shock value, and I wouldn't be offended by a joke or any comment not made to be taken seriously assuming those it was made to all understand that.

Growing up people would make fun of whatever characteristics related to their friends, there wasn't a taboo about making jokes about people's ethnicity whether you were white, black, East Asian, South Asian or of Scottish, English, French, Indian, Pakistani, Chinese, etc. descent someone would make fun of you for it.

In terms of challenging comments nowadays, if any friends made actually bigoted comments, folk wouldn't try to 'educate' them but would probably just make fun of them and mock them about it.

Do you know why they would prefer to make fun of or mock the friends who made such comments instead of talking to them about such comments? That part makes me curious because most people I know would prefer a direct and friendly discussion about such things over being mocked, although not everyone has the same preferences, of course.

The only exception is when I moved overseas, some of my non-Western friends might make comments that they didn't realise could be considered offensive. In that case I might explain how they could be interpreted in case they were around others who could be offended by them.

Why did you make an exception in that case or choose to talk to them about the comments, if you don't mind my asking?

 

[Augustus]

Do you know why they would prefer to make fun of or mock the friends who made such comments instead of talking to them about such comments? That part makes me curious because most people I know would prefer a direct and friendly discussion about such things over being mocked, although not everyone has the same preferences, of course.

The culture is you take the **** out of your friends. As well as bonding it’s a mild form of social correction. If someone gets too big for their boots, or does something that’s a bit wrong then folk take the ****.

For me, “you said something a bit wrong now we will laugh at you until something funnier comes along” is better than lecturing folk or “cancelling” them.

If you tried to “educate“ someone then folk would take the **** out of you.

Why did you make an exception in that case or choose to talk to them about the comments, if you don't mind my asking?

Because they would either travel, work or study in Western countries and as my friends I wouldn’t want them to accidentally cause offence.

For example, if you have never met a black person (or at least many) and get your knowledge of black peoples from hip hop culture, then you can imagine the potential for unfortunate choices in vocabulary

Folk outside the West tend not to be particularly politically correct in my experience, and don’t really understand the extreme sensitivity of many Westerns.

Also I always appreciated when people told me if anything I did could be perceived as impolite in their culture as these weren’t always obvious.