Whatever the reason you decided to read or engage here (thank you! and an extra-big thank you to those who decided to pay for a subscription) I want all of you to feel welcome: part of the gang. That includes you, even when you disagree with me completely.
I’ve often thought that we’re playing with fire having these mandatory white affinity groups that are supposed to discuss “anti racism” Robin DiAngelo style. One day, somewhere, it’s going to backfire and the white group decide “actually we’re the oppressed ones.”
I mean, historically, segregating people and making whites super conscious of race hasn’t gone well.
I loved this post (and am working on a similar post for my own Substack). I have a rule for myself online: I allow all comments that are polite. This includes ideas with which I strongly disagree. I have a Facebook friend who is extremely anti-feminist (for example, he thinks that married women shouldn’t “take jobs away from men”), but so long as he is civil, I let him speak his piece. He grew up in a dysfunctional family and has dealt with poverty, unemployment, and health problems. His anti-feminism is not a great opinion to hold, to my mind, but it comes from a place of suffering, not of hatred.
A college friend gave me another terrific way to send potentially contentious conversations in a productive direction. He was a disciple of Milton Friedman, and I was (and am) a far-left Democrat. We agreed on basically nothing. But in one of our arguments, he said, “Can we agree that we both want the same goals, but we just have different ideas of how to achieve them?” That question has stayed with me, and I remind myself of it whenever “in-group vs. out-group” thinking starts to become a problem.
In-Groups, Out-Groups, and Making the Choice to Bring More People “In”
I’ve often thought that we’re playing with fire having these mandatory white affinity groups that are supposed to discuss “anti racism” Robin DiAngelo style. One day, somewhere, it’s going to backfire and the white group decide “actually we’re the oppressed ones.”
I mean, historically, segregating people and making whites super conscious of race hasn’t gone well.
I loved this post (and am working on a similar post for my own Substack). I have a rule for myself online: I allow all comments that are polite. This includes ideas with which I strongly disagree. I have a Facebook friend who is extremely anti-feminist (for example, he thinks that married women shouldn’t “take jobs away from men”), but so long as he is civil, I let him speak his piece. He grew up in a dysfunctional family and has dealt with poverty, unemployment, and health problems. His anti-feminism is not a great opinion to hold, to my mind, but it comes from a place of suffering, not of hatred.
A college friend gave me another terrific way to send potentially contentious conversations in a productive direction. He was a disciple of Milton Friedman, and I was (and am) a far-left Democrat. We agreed on basically nothing. But in one of our arguments, he said, “Can we agree that we both want the same goals, but we just have different ideas of how to achieve them?” That question has stayed with me, and I remind myself of it whenever “in-group vs. out-group” thinking starts to become a problem.
Thanks for starting the conversation!
Typo: I don't think Joe B is coming FROM my children ...