There are people out there, whose stance is "Everyone who isn't white and straight needs to be removed from this earth".
Having the "common ground" discussion isn't a fruitful one because there is no common ground. There is no meeting someone "halfway" on wanting a pure aryan race. And most of them are late enough in life that they've mostly made up their minds. I have enough problems listening to people complain about liberal media, publicly. Sitting down and talking with them isn't doing shit. They literally run through their talking points, and no amount of "Mhm, yes, I understand" will ever get them to open up to anything you have to say. They want to dictate to you, what the truth of the world is. They are not interested in "listening" to you having a conversation, no matter how willing you are to listen to them.
These are the kind of people that erode your willingness to "sit down and talk". And I imagine for those who have to deal with the level of abuse they get day in and day out from these kind of people, it's not that they can't find the time to dedicate, it's they would rather kill themselves than have to talk to the people who routinely abuse and insult them them day in and day out.
Thanks for taking the time to write out such a thoughtful reply!
This is wonderfully put, and I fully agree, there are people who can not be persuaded, especially in a single conversation. I think you're correct that there is no common ground for something as destructive as genocide, but I ask you to consider it from a different angle.
The common ground isn't in the point of the belief itself, but rather the effects of the belief.
Everyone has at one point become disillusioned, has seen the world one way and then come to see it another, feeling lost and dumbfounded in the process. It is painful to have to go through these changes, doubly so if you are asking someone to realize that they have taken a stance that is racist and harmful to others, and themselves. These conversations have to be done delicately. It's too easy to say they don't deserve the time or respect for holding such beliefs, it's much harder to look at them compassionately, but if you realize
that it could just as easily be you holding those beliefs, it becomes much easier to sympathise with their plight, and much easier to approach the conversation constructively.
In cases where you feel you are not going to find this common ground, i refer again to my previous comment: "
The most effective strategy, time after time after time this last decade has always been to forgive, and offer a hand, and to move on if it is cast away, perhaps for the next individual to try at it in their passing."
The key is that you had the conversation, and you started the process of re-examination, which will hopefully be fortified if the topic comes up again for that person.
Or, and this is only an "or", they think you're one of "the good ones". They still hate gays, or at the very least continue to use homophobic slurs. They just decided to make you an exception. You never changed their attitude on homosexuals, you changed their attitude on you personally. That's the problem. It's what I see every single time. My coworkers who continue to this day to say racist or homophobic things, but get instantly defensive if I ever bring up someone they know who is gay, because "They're alright". As if they can excuse the person, but the attitude in general is still there. Or because they were never challenged by the person who they're indirectly insulting, they feel they've earned the right to say that kind of stuff.
The idea that we can sit down and talk it out with these people is a scenario where you assume both people are acting and discussing in good faith. It's been increasingly clear that that's not the case. Ironically for both sides. I mean, you're not going into that conversation willing to "maybe" come out of it a little more racist. So if you're going into that conversation with a clear agenda of "my way is the right way", why would the other person be any different?
This is a harder topic to discuss, but I think it should still be considered a cause for celebration if you can make any kind of progress at all. You've still opened the door for reconsideration, and you have made progress, and you should be sure to commend them for growing as individuals in any capacity, continually fostering that good will.
Again, the idea isn't that you should be considering maybe coming out of it a little more racist, but perhaps maybe coming out a little more understanding of
how someone can become racist, and how you might be able to show them a more thoughtful path.
If they are smart enough to realize what you're trying to do, and they've already made up their mind that they want to hate these people, and as long as the internet exists to help them find "some" example to justify their beliefs, I really don't see how genuinely effective, long term, "sitting down and talking" is going to do to change their minds.
Trying to make sure their children don't adopt the same attitudes as their parents seems like the more effective strategy, even if it'll take a generation for any real change to happen. That's sort of what is already happening now.
The proof is in our soceity, like I said it's easy to be cynical, and I will be sure to stress this point again:
for good reason. Our society can be brutally oppressive, but likewise, it's extremely ungrateful and dare I say immature to dismiss everything that society does for us as well. There's no other society on Earth that has made the progress ours has socially, it would be nice if things could move faster, and it's important to be critical of it always, but it's not such a bad thing to appreciate the things it has given us either, and generally speaking it has been doing better than anyone else.
We've gotten to where we are on large part because we've abided by the tenants and belief that all men are equally divine. If someone doesn't understand this, it's your role has a citizen of the soceity that has fostered you to do what you can to help them see it, not from a point of manipulation or subjugation, but from a point of compassion and altruism. That's how it has always worked. That's how we've gotten this far.
Edit: And I do apologies, I have worded this as statements more-so than questions, completely against what I was trying to avoid (it is difficult not to run our mouths off), but i've pretty much gotten what i'm thinking out here. The only other point I feel I might add would be in relation to wealth, and to pose the question "how much wealth both high or low would exempt someone from ridicule? And who would make the distinction in that case?". And this isn't in response to anything you posed but to other posters in this thread.
I just feel like, making a case against compassion for any and all requires an extremely powerful and pointed example, as to pose such a case is in itself highly extreme and against what has made our society work so well, generally speaking, in the first place.
