Speak up.
October 12, 2016 1:05 PM   Subscribe

Lessons in the Delicate Art of Confronting Offensive Speech. Researchers have detailed the difficulty of confronting prejudice, but they have also found that even the politest of objections – or subtle corrections to loaded words – can almost instantly curb a speaker’s behavior. With a clearer understanding of the dynamics of such confrontation, psychologists say, people can develop tactics that can shut down the unsavory talk without ruining relationships, even when the offender has more status or power: a fraternity president, say, or a team captain or employer.

Gail Stern, an educator and a co-founder of Catharsis Productions, which gives sexual violence prevention training on college campuses and in the military, said that one deft approach might be to assume that the speaker is being outrageous on purpose, and to respond with something like this: “I love satire. It’s so weird that people believe that for real and it’s so cool you called that out.”

Dealing with offensive remarks that are targeted at oneself or others draws on the important study of bystanding: We are all bystanders but we don't have to be.

More people need to learn about the subtle pressures that can cause bystander behavior, such as diffusion of responsibility and pluralistic ignorance. That way they’ll be better prepared next time they encounter a crisis situation. “We want to explode one particular view that people have: ‘Were I in that situation, I would behave in an altruistic, wonderful way,’” he said. “What I say is, ‘No, you’re misreading what’s happening. I want to teach you about the pressures [that can cause bystander behavior]. Then when you feel those pressures, I want that to be a cue that you might be getting things wrong.’”
posted by storybored (33 comments total) 50 users marked this as a favorite
 
"I love satire. It’s so weird that people believe that for real and it’s so cool you called that out.”

How is this going to be less off-putting to the other person than "that's not cool."

I have a lot of reservations about this. Seems about as useful as actual aikido for self-defence. :\
posted by Dark Messiah at 1:53 PM on October 12, 2016 [4 favorites]


...one deft approach might be to assume that the speaker is being outrageous on purpose, and to respond with something like this: “I love satire. It’s so weird that people believe that for real and it’s so cool you called that out.”

That's how you throw a blanket of awkward on a blaze of loathsomeness. The concept might be sound, but the example is a tad cringey.
posted by Hot Pastrami! at 1:58 PM on October 12, 2016 [7 favorites]


Also, satirically espousing terrible opinions can be pretty obnoxious in itself. The last thing I want to do is encourage more ironic racism and sexism.
posted by a mirror and an encyclopedia at 2:22 PM on October 12, 2016 [13 favorites]


The intentions here are good but, yeah, in practice it is hard to imagine some of the suggested responses having the intended results. The first article kind of reminded me of the worst sort of "Here is how to deal with bullies at school" advice, where the suggestions may sound ok on paper, but would likely get you shoved in a locker if you ever tried to say them out loud in a real-life situation.

As one example, I recently had to spend the better part of a week traveling with a colleague where one of our first conversations had him saying "I never thought we'd have a foreign-born Muslim in the White House, but here we are". Somehow, I get the sense that if I had said, as the article recommends, “I love satire. It’s so weird that people believe that for real and it’s so cool you called that out.” that the rest of the week would have gone a lot worse and been a lot more awkward than my simply changing the subject back to work.
posted by The Gooch at 2:23 PM on October 12, 2016 [4 favorites]


a fraternity president, say, or a team captain or employer.

One of these things is not like the others...
posted by Iris Gambol at 2:23 PM on October 12, 2016 [4 favorites]


I find "Hmm...I'm not sure I understand" to be a pretty bland way of inoffensively confronting offensive speech without making myself an automatic adversary of the other speaker.

It makes me the one with the weakness (i.e., not being able to understand) while tacitly asking the other speaker to assess what they are saying in order to convey it in a way I can understand.

It also allows me to initiate a Socratic dialogue with the other person without them (at first) realizing the dynamic, so I can gently prod them to see where they might be being offensive (and wrong).

Of course, sometimes, you just gotta take a stand.
posted by darkstar at 2:37 PM on October 12, 2016 [23 favorites]


I've thought about the article for a while, and it still rubs me the wrong way. While I understand that some conversations have a skewed power dynamic, so speaking out becomes difficult -- if not impossible.

However, the notion that you can stick up for your principles without bothering people is a pipe dream. There will be friction, it's just part of the process of disagreement.

While it has undoubtedly cost me, I've never been one to shy away from calling out things I don't agree with -- or that I find bigoted, or gross. As I've gotten older, this has lead to me smoothing out my rough edges, and using more tact, but my message remains the same "this is not acceptable, and this is why."

I don't consider it a loss if someone doesn't want to talk to me because I didn't find their racist, sexist, whatever comment palatable. Nothing of value was lost.

(To be fair, I also work in a good environment so such conversations don't come up. I do recall being labelled a "faggot" by an old boss because I told him he was a disgusting old man and I wasn't interested in his thoughts about every woman who came into the store. He also needed me to do closing shifts, so he couldn't do much else to me.)
posted by Dark Messiah at 2:38 PM on October 12, 2016 [5 favorites]


So, I guess I meet the article half-way: use as much as tact as you can, but at some point you need to accept that you're in a conflict with someone. How that escalates after your response varies wildly.
posted by Dark Messiah at 2:41 PM on October 12, 2016 [1 favorite]


I had a discussion about why you don't ignore the person, when speaking about a disability. I discussed how a person has a disability, and is not a disability. The person was insisting on using the word retard. I went 'round and 'round about how people have disabilities but are not defined as humans by them, they have them they are not them. He went on and on, so finally I asked him if it were OK by him if I just called him my crippled brother? Should I say it like this, "Oh yeah, the cripple over there wants more pie?"
posted by Oyéah at 2:44 PM on October 12, 2016 [1 favorite]


From the bystanders link... Hasn't the whole Kitty Genovese thing been proven that actually very few people saw or heard, that it would have been nearly impossible because of walls and doors and such?

One person definitively saw and did nothing; several people saw very little and called the police who did two or three patrols but didn't see Genovese because she was hiding from her attacker. The bystander effect is a real thing, though; it can be mitigated through roleplaying and pre-planning.

In terms of responding to biased speech or someone using slurs, how I respond varies a lot depending on context. For the less well known slurs, I will often try to take someone aside (or on MetaFilter send a memail) if it's off topic for the thread; when it's a fast moving thread or on topic I'll often speak up without linking to or naming the person who used the language - just quoting it and giving a reminder of why it's less than ideal. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt that they would rather know, but in my experience most people would rather not know.

Offline, I often go to the Socratic method of asking questions. I rehearse ideas and past experiences I've had where I didn't like my response, and practice being comfortable with uncertainty. Sometimes I do the friendly sandwich (two positive comments, one on either side of the correction), sometimes I let it be awkward, and sometimes I argue aggressively - the last is almost always in response to someone asking me to sign on to something I find offense (e.g. the time a sexist friend brought up abortion and it was ON (and I won)). Several times I've had people abruptly change the subject and I always let them. Sometimes relationships are just ruined, but I'd rather ruin a relationship than sit by as someone assumes I agree with them on something really racist.

You will get a reputation. I ended up deciding I'd rather be known as "the race girl" or "too PC" than sit by while people said racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc... things in my presence - but I think it's a personal decision what you want to do. I also make a point of never standing up FOR someone else; I'm speaking up because I find it wrong/offensive/think they might not know. No one else is involved nor needs to be for me to speak up. This mitigates the "putting a minority on the spot" effect which can happen if you're speaking up about racism when your white or sexism when you're male.
posted by Deoridhe at 3:26 PM on October 12, 2016 [7 favorites]


I feel like people may be getting hung up on the actual phrase “I love satire. It’s so weird that people believe that for real and it’s so cool you called that out.” I agree this is a weird thing to say, but I think it's being used to illustrate the tone you could take when pushing back.

"I never thought we'd have a Muslim president, but here we are."

"Haha, I know right!? Demonizing whole groups of people based on religion* has always worked out so well in the past! Why NOT stick with that as a strategy! Oh wait, you were serious?? Oh..."

Or whatever would sound most natural coming from you. The point it to play dumb and treat it like such an obvious joke that they feel a little chagrined. I think that oftentimes people who say these things out loud live in such a bubble that they think everyone shares their views and expect a receptive audience. When we stay silent, this belief is reinforced. When we pretend it's a joke we're playing along with, we can show them that it isn't as socially acceptable as they think, while also giving them a chance to save face AND not seem rude.

*I understand that Obama is not a Muslim, but for the sake of the example, I only addressed one aspect of the comment.
posted by triggerfinger at 4:17 PM on October 12, 2016 [2 favorites]


The point it to play dumb and treat it like such an obvious joke that they feel a little chagrined.

I feel like this is more likely to result in your interlocutor feeling either a) you really are dumb or b) you are a smartass.

Generally I've found a mild-mannered but unambiguous rejection of the premise ("actually, I voted for Obama. I think he's doing a pretty good job") works pretty well for putting a damper on being further subjected to this kind of horseshit, especially in professional settings.
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:26 PM on October 12, 2016 [11 favorites]


Isn't this sarcasm? We're supposed to use disguised sarcasm?
posted by Therapeutic Amputations at 4:43 PM on October 12, 2016 [1 favorite]


I always tell myself that people are more effected by disapproval than they let you see, because they want to save face. I mean, I've been there -- I've been called on stuff that I tried to downplay, only to turn it over and over in my mind later.

I also tell myself that I'm not the only one that they're getting this from. One person might not make much of a difference, but if they get it from multiple people, maybe it will sink in. So I should do my part.

I might be too optimistic.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 5:17 PM on October 12, 2016 [3 favorites]


My go-to is "Please don't say that". No reason, no explanation. When appropriate, you may repeat the actual slur, as in "please don't call women 'bitches'", or "please don't call the contractors' overseas staff 'monkeys'".

It works well with people who realise they've trespassed, apologise and move on.

But it works beautifully with those who want to keep digging:
- "What, did I offend your sensibility?"
- "I didn't say that. I just asked you to please not say "
- "But why, it's not (racist|sexixst|serious|whatever)"
- "I just wish you didn't say it when I'm around. It's a polite request. Could you please not say it?"

Keeps everyone from getting into a wholly unnecessary discussion about semantics, political correctness and whatnot. You don't tell your puppy that the carpet takes money to clean, and that you dislike the smell. You just say "NO!".

Of course, there's always the exceptional case, where a bit of education goes a long way, but it's a rare occasion, and "Please don't say that" is still the best opening retort.

posted by kandinski at 6:54 PM on October 12, 2016 [13 favorites]


4chan: That's how you throw a blanket of awkward on a blaze of loathsomeness.
posted by RolandOfEld at 7:07 PM on October 12, 2016


"Don’t answer fools when they speak foolishly,
    or you will be just like them.
Answer fools when they speak foolishly,
    or they will think they are really wise."
— Bible koan

posted by gregoreo at 7:13 PM on October 12, 2016 [3 favorites]


I think we're getting a little distracted by the aikido suggestion here. To me, the point that came through clearly is that no matter which way we choose to do it, intervening when people say offensive things works. Standing up against hateful speech in the way you're comfortable with, whether it be quietly, or aggressively, or kindly, or aikido-ly, tends to cause people to stop saying offensive things. Is that intuitive, or is it surprising? I'm not sure, but it's pretty powerful.
posted by MangoNews at 7:19 PM on October 12, 2016 [7 favorites]


Confronted with racist BS I've always dreamed of breaking out into this song (too bad I can't sing).
posted by kinnakeet at 10:03 PM on October 12, 2016


However, the notion that you can stick up for your principles without bothering people is a pipe dream. There will be friction, it's just part of the process of disagreement.


Exactly. There is something weird for me in this article, it’s clear to me there are huge cultural differences in approaching offensive language - all this politeness and these deflection and distraction strategies, they sound to me like very weak excuses to avoid discomfort, but at the price of letting people get away with being offensive jerks and sperading racism and prejudice. What about the people being targeted by that kind of speech, what if you’re the one on the direct receiving end of that kind of speech, would you have the luxury of even thinking of adopting polite weak distraction strategies in responding? Oh no, you wouldn’t.


After checking out some of the readers’ comments it seems even more evident to me that this article and the study it refers to are from a position of comfortable distance, the point of view of people who have never been on the direct receving end of racist language and generalisations. There is one comment that exactly nails it:
...After, the bank manager approached and thanked me for defending the teller; she then added I should be careful speaking out to strangers because “you never know what can happen.” Sure, that may be true, but I’m a black woman who knows what it feels like to have people hurl hate at me because my visible difference upsets them. I also know what it feels like not to say anything and walk away—and that is far worse.
The price of discomfort and potentially ugly confrontation is nothing compared to the price of being silent or responding too weakly and letting things like that go unchallenged.

And oh yes, satire is the worst kind of response. Either be straightforward and honest and brave, or don’t even bother...
posted by bitteschoen at 10:11 PM on October 12, 2016 [3 favorites]


I prefer either the Long Cold Stare or Polite Bemused Silence. They have stood me in good stead.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 11:49 PM on October 12, 2016 [1 favorite]


Obligatory Jay Smooth link.

The line I have used with good right-leaning friends of mine has always been 'I know some people with your politics believe what you just said, but I also know you're smarter than that'. That has worked beautifully to curb reflexive bigotry or unthinking racist/sexist bullshit from people I care about. With elderly/clueless folks who mutter things at Christmas dinner I've found a loud cough and 'Well, moving on...' sends the message that they are expressing sentiments I don't appreciate without starting a fight. I'm sure they all think I'm a terrible pinko PC person, but any opportunity to prompt self-reflection without inspiring defensiveness is welcome, I think.
posted by Happy Dave at 11:55 PM on October 12, 2016 [3 favorites]


I worked offshore for years with people who were often prone to making remarks I was uncomfortable with.

I think it's not so much that they were making some well thought out political or social statement, but that they belonged to a certain group or stratum and hoped you did as well. It's a plea for engagement over common ground.

While I could not agree with what they were saying (Obama will be the downfall of the Republic, etc.) I could still find them nice people who I would like to get along with.

What I found worked every time without fail was to immediately and unabashedly change the subject. I would ask, without any hint that I had even heard what they said, "What kind of music do you like?"

Their reaction was often relief. I guess because on some level they realized I didn't agree, but they were not going to be attacked for it.

Everybody has something to say about music, and so I could express affirmation for them as a person over something we could agree on. And sometimes find cool new music!
posted by atchafalaya at 12:53 AM on October 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


I am on my final post-graduate practicum in a high school in a low socio-economic area with a number of indigenous students. Yesterday, while working in the faculty staff room, a teacher from another faculty entered to talk to two of the teachers about ... I didn't know, something. With one ear tuned for things that a soon-to-graduate teacher needs to know, I was eavesdropping on their conversation.
Other faculty teacher: .... "blah blah, the deros, blah, new kids, blah blah"
My faculty teacher: ... "yeah, blah blah, the deros, blah blah blah, deros"
Another faculty teacher: "Those deros, blah blah"
Other faculty teacher: .... "Yep, the deros, blah blah. New kids blah blah deros."
Being very open to learning and with a sense of social confidence that comes with age, I turned to the faculty teacher and asked: "Deros? What do you mean, deros?" I was genuine. I thought that it may have been one of the thousand acronyms used in the teaching profession. But immediately the other faculty teacher said "yeah, well" and the other two teachers in my faculty giggled with the tone that says 'yeah, I know I shouldn't say it but...'
With my eyes back on my work I said to the three of them in a 'mock' shocked tone : "that's bad modelling for a pre-service teacher" and left it at that. The three other teachers returned to their conversation about the new students arriving the next day, and for the remainder of that conversation they used the term students, families, parents. The word dero was not said again.

tl;dr - I agree. A brief, curious, non-judgemental comment can achieve a lot without disturbing relations.
posted by Thella at 1:00 AM on October 13, 2016


There's an aspect of the article's proposal that's theoretically interesting. Take the "Change the conversation" tactic (and the same goes for the "aikido" analogy too)—aren't these nudges themselves an implicit form of power play? Which leads to the question, how do we decide when it is appropriate to use these behaviors?

For example, what the authors don't exactly openly say is that in situations where modernist or rationalist discourse is not possible (and one of the NYTimes reader's comments identifies this issue as well and actually they even more strongly disagree with the authors about this), then we can resort to these. What's theoretically ambiguous is in the article one of the experts does add as a criteria that these trained tactics need to be in some sense internalized as opposed to following a "script"—the question is whether that really gives genuineness (authenticity being the dual to the crude accusation of political correctness). What's the relationship between the rhetorical mode proposed versus the more traditional Enlightenment idea of open but respectful disagreement? What's driving this reframing (and subtle omission of the alternatives)?

Not sure if that made any sense but that seems to be the area where the journalists and experts in the article could have developed and pushed further for better clarity.
posted by polymodus at 3:04 AM on October 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


A few years ago a person with extremely racist views, unlike any I had encountered before, entered my life. It was so disturbing I even considered an AskMe to help. I think it mostly has to do with her background in a different culture, but whatever, I couldn't let those things go by and I challenged pretty much everything she said. My responses ranged from "That's not OK!" to "I've lived here for 35 years and that has not been my experience." to ignoring her and looking at my iPhone until she moved on to a different subject. I'm sure she considers me a cranky old bitch, but between my crossness and her actually living with people I think she's coming round.

It's also possible that growing older I no longer give as much of a f*, and I don't mind being the cranky old bitch for the good of all.
posted by maggiemaggie at 5:07 AM on October 13, 2016


I'm sort of confused, personally, about the backlash towards the articles' suggestion of confronting negative speech in ways that allow the offensive person to save face. I do that a lot offline if I have the bandwidth or if I feel unsafe, and it's not really because I actually care that much about the offensive person's feelings. It's because I care about how onlookers perceive me and about whose side onlookers are likely to join in on if the conflict escalates. (This is a tactic, incidentally, that I am much more likely to use if I am challenging an insult to me personally and if I think that onlookers may not back me up--for instance, I used it a lot at my sister's very heteronormative Catholic wedding last summer, when my partner and I were literally the only queer people in the room.)

To give you an example about the sort of responses I'm talking about, I'm thinking of people telling me offensive "jokes" wherein I don't smile, don't laugh, and express confusion and ask them to explain apparently honestly. Or people expressing an offensive opinion where I say, smiling openly, "Did you mean to say this offensive thing? I'm sure that can't be what you intended, can it?"

Allowing the other person to theoretically save face while indirectly and passively pointing out that they have done something extremely rude is a way of speaking up about rude treatment while protecting yourself from backlash. If you follow the "rules" of politeness and at least pay lip service to being honestly confused rather than angry, you're using exactly the same strategy that most microaggressions use to muddy the waters and make it difficult to target you for pushing back. It makes things less clear to observers who aren't paying attention, which in turn makes it harder for the offensive person to recruit other people to punish you for embarrassing them. It also makes it less obvious to the offensive person how they should respond to you while also allowing themselves to believe that they are a Good Person, which means that the chances of them even attempting retribution are lower.

I'm actually naturally a blunt, tactless sort of person. I blurt things out without thinking about it all the fucking time--hell, I can think of three occasions where I pulled this just yesterday. But I never speak thoughtlessly when I am calling out someone like that at work, because I'm careful to hedge around my response to a microaggression with enough plausible deniability to cloak myself and my own precarious position with safety. The less safe I feel in my social status and social position, the more careful I am--because the less I have the luxury of making enemies and being seen as someone who is needlessly aggressive. Even when I'm direct about things with less social weight than this, I get the backlash from people around me to the point that it erodes my self-confidence and my ability to get shit done that doesn't have to do with the social environment. I honestly do not always have the social capital to pay for a direct confrontation, so indirect confrontations are sometimes the only safe way to call out rudeness or bigotry and make it clear I don't wish to support it.

Direct call-outs are only available as an option to some people. We've made this clear here every time a discussion about how women respond to sexism comes up and men suggest hitting offenders or otherwise directly and pungently responding to offense, yeah? And women say "if I tried to do that, I would put myself at risk for much scarier consequences, because the law/authorities/onlookers would not back me up?" This is exactly the same fucking principle. And it kind of amazes and confuses me that so many people are missing that right now.
posted by sciatrix at 6:32 AM on October 13, 2016 [16 favorites]


Direct call-outs are only available as an option to some people. We've made this clear here every time a discussion about how women respond to sexism comes up and men suggest hitting offenders or otherwise directly and pungently responding to offense, yeah? And women say "if I tried to do that, I would put myself at risk for much scarier consequences, because the law/authorities/onlookers would not back me up?" This is exactly the same fucking principle. And it kind of amazes and confuses me that so many people are missing that right now.

I completely get this, and I emphasise my objections to the suggestions in the article are as they relate to my particular set of circumstances (i.e. being an immigrant in a country still struggling with xenophobia).

My experience is that, no matter how politely you try to phrase things, no matter how explicitly you point out the actual black-and-white facts of a matter, no matter how many hoops you jump through to let some bigot "save face", you are still going to end up having a somewhat unpleasant confrontation, and it is highly unlikely this person is going to concede their point during the discussion itself. Bigots are by and large not going to have a forehead-slapping epiphany of the err of their ways, for all the respectability you convey. At the same time, what you do have is the onus still being weighed heavily on the marginalised to maintain their composure, smile, and be polite through it all; and if you lose your cool, someone is going to cite articles just like this in their scolding you for Doing It Wrong when it comes to winning hearts and minds.

People have to choose to change their minds when confronted with the truth, and if it happens, it's most likely to happen after the dust has settled, post-argument. Of course not everyone can take the direct approach, for numerous reasons. I'm just saying that these pleas for the marginalised to be more placid and diplomatic have some problems in themselves, too.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 7:07 AM on October 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


*blinks* I can see how that would be an irritating reading. I read the article as "Here is a way of speaking truth to bigotry which is useful if you haven't thought of it, and since it's very important to speak truth when you see bigotry... well, if you are intimidated by doing that, here are some strategies to make the chances of retribution or social embarrassment on your part less intimidating." I did not read it as chastising people who speak truth more directly, especially since the framing of the article itself (and the FPP!) starts with these premises:

1) directly calling out people is scary

2) however, calling out people is really important, we know this from this research

3) here are some strategies different people suggest that are less intimidating or scary

I.... do not see anywhere where either the author or the linked excerpt asks people who would prefer to contradict bigoted speech more directly and forcefully to behave differently. In fact, from those premises, I suspect the author of the article would cheer those people on and go "Yeah, thank you!"
posted by sciatrix at 7:54 AM on October 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


My decades-ago coworker now lifelong beloved friend would look at me guffawing after some idiotic racist or sexist joke and say, "Is that funny?" in a pitying tone, the same as you'd say "do you have an owie?" to a howling preschooler. It works so well. You know you're a dumbass immediately, and why, and you're properly shamed, but you don't hate your friend because "Is that funny?" said that way is invariably much funnier than whatever idiocy you were laughing at in the first place. That's for if you're friends with the person and the person is having a momentary lapse, though. It probably wouldn't work for nonfriends or fulltime bigots.
posted by Don Pepino at 8:28 AM on October 13, 2016


Direct call-outs are only available as an option to some people

Sciatrix, for what it’s worth I’m coming at this from a similar perspective as Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane above said, from the perspective of people who live as foreigners in countries struggling with xenophobia - which applies imho pretty much to every single country on the planet, but some do struggle more than others especially with public manifestations of xenophobia. And I had clear examples of those public manifestations in mind when I read this and I was thinking exactly of the kind of example I quoted from one of the comments on the NYT - in fact, even worse examples, when there is a very clear use of offensive language in public clearly targeted at someone or a group and EVERYONE AROUND FALLS SILENT.

It’s an experience that is hard to forget when you’re the target, regardless of how you reacted yourself, and after you’ve been through it, it colours even the way you see less offensive less blatant less public displays of racism, and you have a lot less patience and a lot less interest in verbal games and politeness, even in cases where it would probably make more sense, in contexts like the workplace or family or people you know to be fundamentally good people, and you end up appreciating the value of a good proper unafraid unembarassed no-bullshit call-out even in those situations. That’s all. Personal perspectives, perhaps unfair, definitely emotional and unscientific, but so it is.

If I don’t recall wrong there was a video short after the Brexit referendum of someone going off on a racist tirade against someone else on a bus and people around stood up and called that out loud and clear and that was something good to see, and it’s not something you can take for granted. Maybe it was such a blatant display of hatred that you’d think of course people would react, but sometimes they don’t. Not even when it’s blatant and public.

(And my point of view is about the bystanders rather than how anyone targeted should react, so no I don’t see it in the same vein as telling women how we should react in public to offensive displays of sexism)
posted by bitteschoen at 1:22 PM on October 13, 2016


There's another value in the "oh, is that supposed to be funny?" puzzled-look approach, that isn't contained in the flat-voice "not funny" approach - drawing on the series of tweets responding to Trump's "just joking" claims: The person who's "joking" is claiming a shared identity with a group that finds that content funny. By declaring it's not funny, you put yourself outside that group, and sometimes get a rep as a "wet blanket." By being puzzled, or by laughing at the "sarcasm" (which you know wasn't actually intended), you make it clear that you aren't "outside that group" - you are inside another group and the offender is outside.

You have shifted your role from "dull person who doesn't understand our group's hilarious in-jokes" to "someone from the in-crowd, trying to decide if the new guy is cool enough."

Neither is likely to get bigots to change their minds. But one is perceived as an attack on their personal values; the other has a chance of putting them off balance by making their values not the central issue - it's no longer about whether they are, or are not, a bigot, but whether they belong in the group that you're a part of.

Sorting out that "bigotry" is what makes them ineligible is something they have to figure out on their own--but in the meantime, they may be stuck wrestling with a confusion they don't understand, rather than just getting angry at you for trying to shut down their "fun."
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 10:11 PM on October 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


I think that study the article cites, about sending gay and transgender activists into conservative neighborhoods, turned out to be fake. But I'm not entirely sure they're the same study because the article is so vague.
posted by Kattullus at 1:46 PM on November 5, 2016


« Older Dragons first   |   “We need you.” Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments