What if you are a Jewish settler in the West Bank and the neighbor a Palestinian? Or you are a Moroccan in Western Sahara and your neighbor a Sahrawi?

People still have these ideas of some people being the "rightful owners" of some area, whereas others are occupiers, invaders. Even if the "invasion" has happened ten, hundred or thousands of years ago. Is it wrong to think like that? — ssu

The distinction I draw between your question and the question of the OP is that your question asks how to deal with those who have stolen land whereas the OP asks how to deal with racists. Yours includes an actual act, whereas the the OP includes only a mindset.

You then follow up your question with an entirely separate question, which is to ask what constitutes theft of land, which is a complex question asking whether a particular act constitutes a violation of an existing rule. That is to say, your concern is whether a particular act is bad or not and what corrective action should be taken. The OP's concern is whether a particular mindset alone is grounds for corrective action.

But, as you say:

Ideas and views aren't a crime, actions and instigating others to act might be. — ssu

So, trespass to land is a crime. Simply wanting to trespass to land is not. How "trespass" is to be defined and how it is to be distinguished from "rightful occupation" is a matter of the laws a society wishes to set.

For being targeted for racism, in this case.

I don't think a person can become a victim of another's thoughts. Even if the racist imagined murdering the other, the so-called victim would be completely unaware, let alone injured by it.

That it might be difficult to tolerate those who hate me — Hanover

Does their continued presence diminish your faith in humanity, or your faith that life is worth living?
If not, how so?

Until there is an act, or even a reasonable belief an act might occur, I think we are stuck letting Archie Bunker rant away.

I've witnessed a situation like this, and I saw how quickly the police jumped to conclusions, issuing fines, and then other neighbors taking sides, reputations being damaged, practical problems (regarding fences and so on) becoming intractable, and so on. Shaky grounds.

Indeed. But can you be on good neighborly terms with someone who believes you should not exist?
— baker

That it might be difficult to tolerate those who hate me — Hanover

The thing is that once the other person actually tells you they hate you etc., you are now living in the knowledge that you cannot rely on your neighbor (!) for basic human decency toward yourself. They might not actively engage in acts of aggression toward you, but you now have reason to expect that they will engage in acts of omission that can lead to your harm. For example, if they see someone breaking into your home, they will not call the police.

I don't think a person can become a victim of another's thoughts. Even if the racist imagined murdering the other, the so-called victim would be completely unaware, let alone injured by it. — NOS4A2

No, the scenario in the OP specifies that the racist clearly verbalizes their racist stance toward the target and that the rest of the community know about this.

Never mind thought experiments. People hold all sorts of highly disreputable ideas.

What should be done about it? Nothing. No doxxing, no cancelling, no marches around the block objecting to the offenders ideas. In other words, don't escalate a disreputable, objectionable OPINIONS into an even more disruptive, divisive behavior (on their part or yours).

I am not against demonstrations, heated debates, and so on. There are plenty of ACTIONS that are disreputable and objectionable which can and should be resisted.

I don't think a person can become a victim of another's thoughts. Even if the racist imagined murdering the other, the so-called victim would be completely unaware, let alone injured by it. — NOS4A2

I’ve had this thought quite often, and for the most part agree. The only issue then is that, in order for us to be consistent, we must not object to pedophiles lusting after our children. Emotionally, I’m just not able to stomach this. So I’m at a bit of an impasse...

:up:

No, the scenario in the OP specifies that the racist clearly verbalizes their racist stance toward the target and that the rest of the community know about this.

In the scenario the racist also verbalizes that she would treat the person with common courtesy. Where exactly does the injury occur?

In the scenario the racist also verbalizes that she would treat the person with common courtesy. Where exactly does the injury occur? — NOS4A2

Expressing hatred is a breach of (potential) trust. It's a declaration of war terms.

Can you live peacefully next to someone who tells you don't deserve to exist?

I’ve had this thought quite often, and for the most part agree. The only issue then is that, in order for us to be consistent, we must not object to pedophiles lusting after our children. Emotionally, I’m just not able to stomach this. So I’m at a bit of an impasse...

I don't see why you must not object. Just like the racist, such beliefs are worthy of suspicion, contempt and ridicule. The only point is we shouldn't blur the line between words and beliefs on the one hand, and acts on the other.

Right, but suppose there are acts, like masturbating, what then? Is it permissible to let pedophiles accumulate photos/videos/blow-up dolls of children that will then be used for the distinct purpose of getting off to? After all, who is the victim?

I don't think a person can become a victim of another's thoughts. Even if the racist imagined murdering the other, the so-called victim would be completely unaware, let alone injured by it. — NOS4A2

Agree.

No, the scenario in the OP specifies that the racist clearly verbalizes their racist stance toward the target — baker

So?

In highly privileged, sheltered workshops like super-liberal private colleges it is apparently possible to physically injure others by putting words to paper or uttering them in speech (especially if the receivers are fragile literalists). Bah! Humbug! to all of that. Hearing or reading objectionable opinions will not so much as move a hair on one's head.

Hearing or reading objectionable opinions will not so much as move a hair on one's head. — Bitter Crank

Even when they are said by a person living just a few meters away from you?

Whenever you see that person, you know, "This person wishes me dead". Does that make for a good life for you?

I believe the correct way to phrase that is "Am I bothered though?" - Little Britain

Can you live peacefully next to someone who tells you don't deserve to exist? — baker

Of course I can live peaceably next door to someone who thinks I should not exist (there are such people, actually) and they can live peaceably next door to me. We will both probably make some effort to stay out of each other's way. No comradely beers in the yard for us!

Of course I can live peaceably next door to someone who thinks I should not exist (there are such people, actually) and they can live peaceably next door to me. We will both probably make some effort to stay out of each other's way. No comradely beers in the yard for us! — Bitter Crank

I suppose this is easier to handle when being neighbors in an apartment building where people can mostly ignore eachother without this having any bad consequences. But being neighbors in neighboring houses in a suburb is another matter, because there are issues of infrastructure, trees, fences, etc. that you must discuss with the neighbor and come to some agreement to.

Expressing hatred is a breach of (potential) trust. It's a declaration of war terms.

Can you live peacefully next to someone who tells you don't deserve to exist?

Yes, I can.

Right, but suppose there are acts, like masturbating, what then? Is it permissible to let pedophiles accumulate photos/videos/blow-up dolls of children that will then be used for the distinct purpose of getting off to? After all, who is the victim?

The victims are those in the photos and videos. That's why such materials are considered contraband, I believe. So I do not think it is permissible to accumulate such materials.

Hey, I have not been a go-along get-along kind of guy. All sorts of things bother me; there are many opinions I find objectionable; I regularly encounter people who are really irritating in ever so many ways. There are numerous people who I would just as soon didn't exist (near me, anyway).

"How I feel" is one thing. No, I do not feel good when someone tells me that they hate me, insults me, or tells me that I am worthless, etc. Who would? But if one lives in a world with other people, one has to separate out how one feels from how one thinks and what one judges to be proper action.

The chain of: words ----> feeling bad ----> acting in response ----> repeat is nothing but trouble, both for the individual and for groups.

Can you live peacefully next to someone who tells you don't deserve to exist?

Yes, I can. — NOS4A2

And you talk to them, greet them, as if all was well?

The chain of: words ----> feeling bad ----> acting in response ----> repeat is nothing but trouble, both for the individual and for groups. — Bitter Crank

Not for the one who casts the first stone. That person comes out the winner.

And you talk to them, greet them, as if all was well?

I would. Think of someone like Daryl Davis. Extending an olive branch is sometimes the antidote to hatred.

What kind of risks are you referring to? The revenge of... who? How will they take revenge? What kind of people are you talking about?

The distinction I draw between your question and the question of the OP is that your question asks how to deal with those who have stolen land whereas the OP asks how to deal with racists. Yours includes an actual act, whereas the the OP includes only a mindset. — Hanover

How to deal with a cartoon figure-like racist is one thing, but racism or xenophobia go viral only if there is some actual act behind the reason (or can be fabricated as the reason) why these ugly ideas have become popular. Typically people don't hate others. There can be the individual with personal problems, but if you have widespread fear or hatred in a community between ethnicities or racial groups, there usually is a smoking gun buried somewhere in history.

And this act, which you later refer as trespassing to land is a crime, where do you draw the line? Sure, if it's you yourself that has illegally taken hold of the land belonging to someone other, there the reasoning is obvious. But how about when that land has changed hands in the most typical way in history, after a war? And there's no peace agreement and basically the claim to that land is nearly the only thing that the people who lost the war have as a strong connecting identity. And this can continue for centuries.

Doesn't matter then if "the theft" was "perpetrated" by the generation of your grand parents or great grandparents or a generation of your ancestors that you have no idea of. If the some people uphold the remembrance of the theft and think of you as the perpetrator, then there's the cause. That you have not known any other home than that town doesn't matter.

People who will piss on your lawn, slit the tires on your car ...

Extending an olive branch is sometimes the antidote to hatred. — NOS4A2

While many other times, it's a act of submission and letting the other person have the upper hand. And to fuck with you.
And once you make the mistake of extending that olive branch, it's too late, the power hierachy between the two of you is set for as long as you live.

True. If someone who wishes you didn't exist tries to make amends by baking you a cake my advice is don't eat it.

How ought a community deal with such a neighbor? Do we expel them? Which belief did we expel them for? How do we draw the line between a difference of opinion and something that someone ought to be expelled for? — BitconnectCarlos

Is he bothering or harassing you? You after all went onto his property and were told something he has a right to say. You can continue to attempt to get to know him, perhaps change his mind or you can tell him you appreciate his candor and just not deal with him. Better the devil you know, right? There's no threat like a hidden one, so be grateful it was made known. Might be awkward running into him at market or something. If you want to be cheeky I suppose you could casually bring it up around mixed company and see what the response is on a level playing field. Of course, that's not quite being the bigger person. And if you're a minority could be unwise. Most of the kinds of prejudices or intolerance you're describing were fathered by past actions or experiences brought on by said disliked persons. Someone probably hurt him, or someone close to him, and you simply happen to resemble or "come from" wherever the person or persons who come to mind when he sees you do.

Is this a school or are you his landlord? You can't expel a fellow taxpaying citizen from his private property just because you don't like him. You can expel him for your own private circle of friends and acquaintances, not talk to him or perhaps shun him, but unless you live in a private, gated community that has an HOA or is otherwise privately managed, there are few options along that avenue.

Well, and again it depends on the jurisdiction, but that kind of attitude is not in line with most modern Constitutions. So in a way, you can take solace knowing you're more (insert country name here) than him! Of course, in a democracy people have a right to hold and speak views that are contradictory to national values, even to protest and oppose the government itself- lawfully. So, if he's not breaking any laws or creating any problems, and neither are you, why create one?

To summarize, If he's polite and seems to otherwise be just another law-abiding, mentally-healthy member of your community, there's little to be done.

"Don't become the monster your trying to fight, for if this happens what more does it need do?; When you gaze into the abyss, the abyss will gaze into you." - Nietzsche, paraphrased

While many other times, it's a act of submission and letting the other person have the upper hand. And to fuck with you.
And once you make the mistake of extending that olive branch, it's too late, the power hierachy between the two of you is set for as long as you live.

No power hierarchy exists in this scenario. It’s just two individuals in a community. The thoughts he has or expresses are unable to elevate him to any position of power. And upon refusing your olive branch you could laugh in his face and flip the bird.

— NOS4A2
While many other times, it's a act of submission and letting the other person have the upper hand. And to fuck with you.
And once you make the mistake of extending that olive branch, it's too late, the power hierachy between the two of you is set for as long as you live. — baker

Google Daryl Davies. His “act of submission” has done more to cure racism than all community banishing of racists combined because banishing a racist doesnt do anything to address racism. Stopping people from saying racist words or not wearing certain things or talking about race or any if the other non-remedies “anti-racist” people go to battle over doesn’t do anything to stop racism. The sole purpose of such things is yo make people feel better about race and NOT the actual targets of racism but mostly white people who enjoy the social license to act poorly, like the witch hunters of old.

To be honest, this situation doesn't seem all that far fetched. While explicit racism is taboo were I live, explicitly anti-homosexual and transgender views, couched in religion, aren't that uncommon.

What do you do?



Well here, with the roach analogy, you can be pretty sure that you have a roach infestation in your community. There are racist individuals, they are just hiding it. So you're stuck tolerating, living with the infestation either way.

The problem with "hunting" such people is that they rarely will do you the nicety of being so explicit, and the act of the hunt itself,.trying to parse true intentions from either deception or misunderstanding, has its own pitfalls.

I've seen people converted to virulent racism and extremism over time. There comes a point where I could no longer tolerate the offenses enough to try a conversion or even maintain any sort of relationship. Of course, people getting cut off from their friends and family by extreme ideologies is exactly the mechanism which allows them to recruit people for violent terrorism, but there comes a point where ostracism is the only step to take, barring physical force.

It's morally dicey. I had to cut or a friend I've known from high school over his conversion to white nationalist ideology following the rise of Trump. My uncle had a similar slide as the popularity of the Orange Augustus grew, although has never become as acute a case. I still have to see him sometimes, and he at least has the ability to step out of his hateful ideology and view relations through the lens of Catholicism. My former friend is really a lost cause, at this point it's really just hoping he doesn't shoot up a place. It astounds me how a reality TV star was able to accelerate so many peoples lurch towards extremism (algorithm driven media consumption is as big a cause too). I was working as a terrorism researcher at the height of IS's rise and it is remarkable how efficiently Western ethno-nationalists adopted their tactics.

You can continually challenge their world view and present facts and logical arguments, but when someone doesn't want to listen and takes any disagreement as signs of oppression and reacts with anger, discussion isn't fruitful.