More about Crazy Racist Guy

[brigdh]

Oh, crazy racist guy. The ways in which you drive me insane.

I've taken to discussing everything with him in only the most general, fictional terms I can manage. Because, well, it's not fair to anyone else; it's a group for writers, not the "watch Brigdh and Crazy Racist Guy scream at each other for two hours" group. But besides that, it's the only way I can handle him on humane level. Whether or not I should be even trying to do that, I go back and forth on. On the one hand, regardless of what he happens to believe, I want to treat him like a person who deserves understanding and compassion. On the other hand, I can't help but think that allowing him to say some of the things he does without throwing a fit only encourages him to say them to other people, and I don't want anyone to suffer because of this asshole. God, I don't know.

Anyway. Distant and fictional. Because while I can't even allow myself to think the words "I cannot believe you're defending Hilter" without quickly going down a path of rage and incoherence, I can deal as long as I stick to statements like "Well, I think if you have Hitler as a character in your story, your readers are going to automatically react to him in very emotional, intense ways, which you should be aware of".

Here's part of our conversation from tonight:

Him: [Long, long description of a story he's writing, which I'm skipping.] So then Job gets a chance to talk with God, to ask him if there isn't some way to prevent the war between the Christians and the Muslims, because Job knows if it happens, many, many people will die. But God says no, that genocide is necessary in this case.
Me: That's your portrayal of God in this story?
Him: Yes. Because, look, God has asked for genocide before. Saul had the crown taken from him because he refused to kill every last one of the Amalekites like God asked him to. God wanted him to kill every last man, woman, and child. God said that. That's how David became king! A lot of people ask 'is genocide wrong?' and they say that the answer is always yes, but no, it's not. We have these examples from God.
Me: I think the problem most people would have with this is not that you can't make an argument for it using examples from the Bible, but that such examples might not be the sole determiner of morality, even if they are from the Bible.
Him: But the Bible has to be the source of morality! Otherwise it's arbitrary- no, goodness is arbitrary. It's just what God says. You do good so you'll be rewarded, and you don't do bad because you're afraid of being punished.
Me: I don't think that's how most people see morality.
Him: Yes! That's the only reason why people do good, because they want to be rewarded for it. Reward and punishment, that's why people do things. That's the whole point!
Me: You don't think there's anything inherently good in doing good? You don't think people do things for the things themselves?
Him: No, it's abirtary.
Me: ...Mmm.

And this is the other reason why I try not to consider what he says in real life terms. It's pointless on a level I can't even comprehend. When I argue with someone, I do it in the hopes that, however unlikely it may be, we can find something to agree on or I might even convince them to my way of thinking. When you're so far distant from someone that you would need to first consider how to prove why genocide might be a bad thing, where do you even start? I mean, I just... what the fuck. If the sentence "No, the fact that it drained the German war effort is not the main reason why the Holocaust was a bad idea" would ever, ever enter the discussion, middle ground is so far away that it will never be reached.

The whole thing makes me furious. Or depressed, I'm not really sure. I just hate that he's accepted because he's a Christian (or claims to be. I can't imagine how he thinks he's actually following Jesus), and to so many people, that's what it means to be moral. Even ignoring the racism, the genocide thing, the hatred of other religions and cultures and sexualities, how the hell can you be in your mid-twenties and still believe that the only reason to do good is so you'll be rewarded? I'd be embarrassed to hear a six-year-old say that. And obviously people have justified him in these views; someone had to raise him to believe these things, there must be enough people who agree with him that he's never felt pressured to change his opinion. He must be able to surround himself with people who all agree: this is what being moral means. And how many times have I had to argue with people over whether it's even possible for me to be moral, if I'm an atheist? How many fucking times have I had people condemn me to hell autmoatically, or sincerely believe that it's not even possible for to judge the difference between good and bad? But him, he's okay.

I hate that I can make every effort to treat him decently, and spend hours wondering about the right thing to do in this regards, and he's the one who's supposed to have values, the moral vote that politicians pander to. I can't even... I don't even know what to say.

Comments

[eag.livejournal.com]

I can't even imagine it. You're going to need blood pressure medication if you have to keep dealing with this asshole.

I see you're listening to the Refreshments. I'm actually going to see them tomorrow night. :D (As the Peacemakers.)

[wordsofastory.livejournal.com]

Gah, yes. Though most of the time, I find that the utter shock of even being involved in such a conversation tends to delay any other reaction until later.

Oh, cool! This is the only song of theirs I have, though I really like it. Any other recommendations?

[eag.livejournal.com]

I'll send you a big pile of mp3's if you like. Maybe catch you on AIM or something? :) Sorry I didn't reply to this earlier, I just got home from being out of town for a few days.

[wordsofastory.livejournal.com]

Wow, cool! I'm on AIM pretty often- thebrigdh- so whenever you have time would be good.

[clari-clyde.livejournal.com]

Ew. Damn. That this “christian” dare justify genocide? WTF?! And out of curiosity, I’ll bet you anything he’s “pro-life.” Anyways, anyone can open up a bible, read the red stuff, and see it contradictory to what he says.

I dunno but I thought that the point of being good was to be decent to people — you know, recognize them as humans worthy of respect and compassion. There’s nothing arbitrary about that. Complex? Sure. Arbitrary? Nope.

So I hate that atheists get branded as immoral. Have people ever wondered, “Without God, do people still have an obligation to be moral and ethical to each other?” My answer is yes. For some people, the answer is no (if they even have considered the question at all) and this I don’t understand because you’re not being good for the sake of being good but are doing so for some selfish reason and that people don’t see the hypocrisy in this makes me sad.

As for how to treat this person. People do deserve to be treated as humans. And this is gonna sound like “turn the other cheek,” but even if somone has disdain for you, don’t stoop low to their level. That said, people need to call other people out on their bullshit. Staying quiet only perpetuates it.

[wordsofastory.livejournal.com]

I dunno but I thought that the point of being good was to be decent to people — you know, recognize them as humans worthy of respect and compassion.

That's what I've always thought, too. But I dunno. Maybe the only way to convince yourself of things like 'genocide is okay!' is to play such extreme mental gymnastics that you end up having to think goodness is arbitary. When you're holding such extreme views, at some point something has to break. For most people, I would think they go with the view of 'no, genocide = bad", but he seems to have gone the route that avoids reality.

People do deserve to be treated as humans. And this is gonna sound like “turn the other cheek,” but even if somone has disdain for you, don’t stoop low to their level.

That's what I've been trying. Well, lately at least. I started off fighting and screaming with him, but it seems to make no difference how I react, so I've given up the effort.

[kohakutenshi.livejournal.com]

I'd have to have words with that one. Going against God is apart of the Bible, too. Adam and Eve? It was integral that they do that. God knew it would happen, too. :3 But you also have to look at how many times the Bible has been translated by different men who only wanted to control the populace. That's why I like the part where it says God will put His word on your heart. So I do good, not because I'll be punished otherwise (Hell, in this day and age it's rewarded to be bad) but because I know it's right and I would hate to be hurt, so what gives me the right?

Of course, I'm also the one who wrote a philosophy on how evil is a neccessary thing in our world, because it helps preserve those who survive by giving us more resources. Less people, more food and space for the rest of us. But hey, I didn't have another topic and I already wrote about idealism that semester. XD

But the sad thing is, a lot of people do evil things and then hide behind the Bible and mis-quote God to make it look right. They think killing homosexuals is a good thing. But then, what happened to the ten commandments, namely, "Thou shall not kill" and let's not forget the part in the Bible where we're supposed to love out neighbors regardless.

Argh. Just ignore him. He'll get his in the end.

[clari-clyde.livejournal.com]

But you also have to look at how many times the Bible has been translated by different men who only wanted to control the populace.

*nods*

And, it’s been observed that prophets don’t start religions, their followers do. Anyways, I’d like to add that the followers start religions — with their own agenda. For me, it’s hard to take the gospel seriously knowing it wasn’t written by Jesus but by men and many years after the fact.


But the sad thing is, a lot of people do evil things and then hide behind the Bible and mis-quote God to make it look right. They think killing homosexuals is a good thing. But then, what happened to the ten commandments, namely, "Thou shall not kill" and let's not forget the part in the Bible where we're supposed to love out neighbors regardless.

Right. I think that it’s actually a sign of moral weakness to blindly quote the Bible to justify what they do. A more intelligent and independent person, with a strong sense of the value of human life, would come to the conclusion that killing is wrong — with or without the Bible or God or whatever such pretense of a superior knowledge of morality. A more intelligent and independent person would be able to take an argument to its logical conclusion. In this case, if genocide is right, then everyone in the human race deserves to do for merely being different from each other.


Argh. Just ignore him. He'll get his in the end.

I believe in the karma police, I really do. I just think though that some people are too stupid or too unwilling to self-examine their choices and character. So when the karma police come, it’s easier for them to blame other people and in the end, they learn nothing from their mistakes.

[wordsofastory.livejournal.com]

A more intelligent and independent person would be able to take an argument to its logical conclusion. In this case, if genocide is right, then everyone in the human race deserves to do for merely being different from each other.

Crazy Racist Guy's argument would be that some people deserve to live (read: white American christians), and some people have shown that they don't (read: uh... everyone else on the face of the planet, pretty much). He seems to have an extreme version of the Rapture playing out in his head, with himself as the one to eradicate the Earth of 'sinners' before the Second Coming.

[wordsofastory.livejournal.com]

but because I know it's right and I would hate to be hurt, so what gives me the right?

Yeah, that's a good way to put it.

Argh. Just ignore him. He'll get his in the end.

Man, I wish. But I can't stop going to the group, because I'm the president of it, and I can't ban him from coming, because even if I could find a rule letting me, I'm not sure it's the right thing to do. So I have to deal with him, but I just wish I had a simple answer of how to treat him.

[p-zeitgeist.livejournal.com]

But I see why you haven't been able to make yourself leave this alone. It has to be maddening, but it's also bizarre: it makes me think of going someplace where you can be sure that at some point in the hour, a solid object will rise of its own accord and, in evident defiance of gravity, float in midair. Why is it doing that? How is it even possible? Is it really happening at all, or is this some strange and elaborate practical joke, or psych experiment, so that if you examine it carefully enough and for long enough you'll finally find the hidden wires or magnets? Inquiring minds want to know.

I hadn't realized other people were supporting him in this stuff, though. My mental picture had been of one whackjob, and I've spent more time than he deserves wondering why he was making an aggressive point of bringing up his obviously socially unacceptable ideas even when he had to work to do it. Indeed, I had thought that if I were forced to deal with him, it would probably be all of about five minutes before I cracked and asked him straight out why he wanted so badly to talk to me about this. That, at least, is something I'd actually like to know.

But, you're saying that nobody else disagrees with him, or shows any sign of thinking that arguing that God hearts genocide is deeply problematic? That all he has to do is announce that he's a Christian, and all his ideas become acceptable because anybody who'd call himself Christian has to be good?

If so, that's a whole different situation, and I am now officially way more creeped out than I was before. One jerk is bad enough. A critical mass of jerks, and I'm going to have to start thinking about stockpiling ammo just in case.

[clari-clyde.livejournal.com]

If so, that's a whole different situation, and I am now officially way more creeped out than I was before. One jerk is bad enough. A critical mass of jerks, and I'm going to have to start thinking about stockpiling ammo just in case.

Ditto. A co-worker of mine said, “All it takes is one idiot to ruin your life and a few idiots to ruin a country.” He immigrated to the U.S. during the Yugoslav war in the ’90s so that’s what he was talking about. As such, he has little tolerance for such people now.

[wordsofastory.livejournal.com]

it makes me think of going someplace where you can be sure that at some point in the hour, a solid object will rise of its own accord and, in evident defiance of gravity, float in midair

God, yes. It's almost fascinating, in a way. But I find myself wondering: is he like this in class? with his friends? when out in stores and restaurants? He can't possibly function socially if he's like this all the time, can he? And yet he seems to. It's a mystery! A terrifying, horrible mystery.

But, you're saying that nobody else disagrees with him, or shows any sign of thinking that arguing that God hearts genocide is deeply problematic?

Ah, I was upset last night when writing this. It's less of a problem than I making it out to be. But no, no one does disagree, though they're all simply doing versions of the same thing I've been doing- that is, changing the subject, ignoring what they can, or taking the things he says solely in the context of a story. I can hardly be angry at them for doing the same thing as me, but either they're better actors than I am, or more used to him, or simply less shocked, because occasionally I can't even bring myself to speak or look at him, and everyone else seems to carry on the conversation without problems. And then I get angry, because I hate that we're allowing these topics to be tolerated, but now that I'm the president of the group, I feel a responsibility to not, you know, start screaming at the members or punching them. But I don't know what I can do to stop it, because I can hardly ban the discussion of anything remotely disagreeable or offensive, but that's the lengths I'd have to go to to get him to shut up. And of course people should be able to write things that aren't ethical. It's not that he wants to write a story to see if Hitler could be redeemed in itself, because that could be a wonderful, fascinating story in someone else's hands. It's just that he's so obviously enthusiastic about the idea, but how do you argue with such subjective details of tone and implication?

I just don't know. He's going to drive me crazy before the quarter ends.

[wordsofastory.livejournal.com]

Yes. I really don't want to get into an argument over the Bible with him, because I'm sure he can quote many, many more passages than I could (I mean, Amalekites, what the hell? I'm just lucky google managed to figure out what I was talking about or you guys would have gotten one hell of an interestingly spelled post), but he's so obviously wrong that it hurts.

I think that's how everyone feels after interacting with Crazy Racist Guy. He always ruins my whole day.

[chiasmus.livejournal.com]

I'd be tempted to just deck him one and be done with it. Arguing might not work, but he'd probably get you didn't like him from that. Though, I'm on the punchy side today, so maybe that's why. :D

Yeah, those people do seem to find encouragement somewhere, or at least able to perceive it. My grandmother's that way, which is why I can barely have a civil conversation with her if it goes too long or near too anything like that. People get set in there ways, and nine times out of ten they aren't going to break out of them.

[wordsofastory.livejournal.com]

Well, I did threaten to punch him once already. We've been in several fights, but as it seems to make no difference to him (like, I think he likes me. As in hitting on me. Despite the fact that screaming in someone face's that they're a racist, worthless idiot tends to send 'I don't like you!' signals), I've given up on that.

My grandmother is sort of like that too, but I have never in my life meet anyone who was as bad about it as this guy. In weird way, it almost makes him easier to talk to than my grandmother; I get angry at her for not thinking things through or being more considerate, but Crazy Racist Guy is just so crazy that it's hard to apply normal human standards to him. I'm happy to let him insist most of the Koran was stolen from the Bible as long as it means he's not advocating genocide, you know?

[solo.livejournal.com]

Can't you just say something like "Let's talk again when you've grown another braincell" and refuse to deal with him from then on? I don't think you'll ever get through to him, if that's what you're hoping, and you're just going to drive yourself nuts if you continue to engage with him.

[wordsofastory.livejournal.com]

I wish. The thing is that I'm the president of the group we're both in, so I can hardly just stop going. By this point, I could probably get away with banning him, since our university does have a pretty enthusiastic diversity policy and he violates it about once a minute, but I'm not sure that it would be the right thing to do, or even that it would help anything. He'd probably just blame it on the "P.C. police".

[solo.livejournal.com]

Why would it not be the right thing to do? At least you'd be making the statement that his behaviour is unacceptable.

It would definitely help you, since you wouldn't have to deal with him any more, and it might help others who are made uncomfortable by him but are afraid to speak up - there are always some. People are like that. :-/

And hey, let him blame it on the PC police; I don't think there's anything you can do about his lack of intelligence, so why worry?

You could warn him a couple of times first that he's in danger of being banned; if it has no effect (and I guess it won't) then at least you have a record...

[wordsofastory.livejournal.com]

Why would it not be the right thing to do?

I don't know. I just keep feeling like it's not fair to exclude him because he happens to have a different set of beliefs than anyone else in the group. And as long as he sticks to talking about things within the context of a story, I don't technically have anything to complain about. Like I was saying to Phoebe up above, it's not so much the fact that he wants to write a story redeeming Hitler, as how enthusiastic he is about it. And when we get down to things like tone and implication, I feel petty for drawing the line there.

And I don't know, heh. I think I might have some sort of hero complex; I keep thinking there must be something I can say to convince him to change his mind.

[parallactic.livejournal.com]

I have no words. Just...people like that actually exist? If I were in your shoes, I wouldn't know what to say, mostly because I wouldn't even know where to begin. I always thought it would be hard to be out and out racist in modern day society.

how the hell can you be in your mid-twenties and still believe that the only reason to do good is so you'll be rewarded? I'd be embarrassed to hear a six-year-old say that.

Actually, I have met people like that. People who, say, find a $20 on a sidewalk or find a good parking space near the store, and say that it's because they've been good, or God was looking out for them. (And I've met middle aged adults who expressed those sentiments.) That worldview is so alien to my own, that it bypasses the urge to argue or discuss, and hits all my, "must gawk, analyze, and figure out a way to get more info" buttons.

And how many times have I had to argue with people over whether it's even possible for me to be moral, if I'm an atheist?

...huh? People actually argue that? Then again, I'm coming from the opposite end of the spectrum, where religious-based ethical arguments make no sense to me. I mean, the other person you're talking to might be of an entirely different religion, or an atheist. And now, I probably have to look at my own unexamined liberal assumptions about How the World Works.

[wordsofastory.livejournal.com]

Just...people like that actually exist?

That was pretty much my reaction the first time I met him, too. I still wonder about it actually, if just because I can't imagine that he's capable of functioning if he's truly this racist and this open about it.

That worldview is so alien to my own, that it bypasses the urge to argue or discuss, and hits all my, "must gawk, analyze, and figure out a way to get more info" buttons.

Mm, yes. I hadn't thought of that- the good luck = reward for my behavior attitude- as part of the same attitude, but you're right, they share the same basis. And I do see people who express that belief very often, though like you, I don't understand it myself. Because if you believe that good luck is a reward, than surely you must believe the reverse too, right? That bad luck is a punishment. So do they think that all the people who have had horrible things happen to them deserved it? I don't know.

...huh? People actually argue that?

*All the time*. And I don't mind the question in itself, because "how do you know what's right and what's wrong" can be a very interesting debate, and while some people simply rely on what God/Scriptures/Buddha/whoever says, seeing what basis other people use can be neat. But people tend to phrase it in incredibly rude ways, and not just random crazy people. I've had people who I consider to be very close friends say- though not it so many words, true- "But you can't be moral, you can't even know how to try", seemingly entirely unaware of how insulting that is.

I think the argument goes that if you're not basing your views of right/wrong on God (or some other figure or text), you're only basing them on what you think, and they are therefore unstable, full of unconscious prejudices, arbitrary, and meaningless.

[parallactic.livejournal.com]

I don't understand it myself. Because if you believe that good luck is a reward, than surely you must believe the reverse too, right? That bad luck is a punishment. So do they think that all the people who have had horrible things happen to them deserved it? I don't know.

I've seen the reverse as well. I once had a conversation about a friend, where I was consoling her over what a bad day she was having and how random shit just happens, when she said something like, "It makes me wonder what I did to deserve this."

I was agoggle, and asked her what she meant. To which she replied that she believed in karma. Then again, I'm sure that I must be equally strange to other people--the universe is an arbitrary place and largely indifferent to the microscopic scale of individual human lives, and cause and effect are so widespread and intricate that it's hard to suss out why things happen so you just got to stop analyzing the whys and do something. But that's harder said than done.

I think what the reward/punishment worldview has going for it is that it's more orderly, and there's more of a sense of control over your life.

I think the argument goes that if you're not basing your views of right/wrong on God (or some other figure or text), you're only basing them on what you think, and they are therefore unstable, full of unconscious prejudices, arbitrary, and meaningless.

I agree that asking what people base their morality on is an interesting question, and find the idea of structuring your worldview around religion passively interesting. (It's interesting whenever it comes up, but I don't spare it much thought.)

But I suppose my problem is: which religion do you choose? I can't keep track of all the variant strains of Christianity, or how they interpret the bible. What about Islam? Or Judaism? Or getting out of the Judeo-Christian family entirely, and choosing Buddhism which is one of the major religions in the world, and also has various strains? Or paganism, which seems to have a grassroots popularity going for it in the U.S. There's also Hinduism, and Zoroastranism, etc. And if you managed to pick a religion, then your moral arguments would only be relevant to those already converted, and would be useless for atheists or someone with a different religion. This is why religious-based moral arguments make little sense to me, other than as a tool to explain why someone's making the argument, or what their concerns are.

I think one of the assumptions I need to examine is how I default into taking a relativistic stance (which is dangerous, paradoxical, and unhelpful when taken to an extreme). So yes, the world is arbitrary, in that there are no universals, and that standards keep on changing according to historical era, location, and so forth. But, hm, I do believe in core issues of morality, and lines you don't cross, like genocide will always = bad.

[wordsofastory.livejournal.com]

Then again, I'm sure that I must be equally strange to other people--the universe is an arbitrary place and largely indifferent to the microscopic scale of individual human lives, and cause and effect are so widespread and intricate that it's hard to suss out why things happen so you just got to stop analyzing the whys and do something. But that's harder said than done.

Aw. I sort of want to hug you; I so rarely find people who think about things in the same way I do that it's very exciting. But I think you're right in that this view often seems strange to other people. I'm taking a philosophy class this quarter, and on one of the first days we were talking about the reward/punishment view of things, and the 'things happen because they're part of a plan' view, and I was trying to argue that things could just, you know, happen. The professor closed the discussion with, "I don't think there's anyone who actually believes that things don't happen for a reason. I don't understand how anyone could." Which left me thinking 'I don't really understand your views either, but you don't see me announcing it to everyone'.

your moral arguments would only be relevant to those already converted

I think some people- though not everyone. I know many, many people who are deeply religious and also accepting and understanding of other value systems- think that their moral arguments are universal, regardless of whether or not anyone else is a follower of the same religion. The opinion that seems to be most popular among the people I know is that there are some standards that are open to interpretation, and some that are not. So, for example, very few people are willing to condemn another for not following Jesus or going to church every Sunday. But they would hold things like "thou shalt not steal/kill/commit adultery" to be true regardless of what religion, culture, time or place the situation is occurring in. So it doesn't matter where the person you're talking to is coming from, because your morals are truths that apply to everyone.

Relativism has its problems, but so does the other side. The hard part is finding where the middle ground is.

[parallactic.livejournal.com]

I got wrapped up in trying to figure out how the racist guy sees the world, but it later occurred to me to wonder how the other group members took his remarks, especially the non-white ones? That's got to be upsetting, unless they left the group.

Aw. I sort of want to hug you; I so rarely find people who think about things in the same way I do that it's very exciting.

Heh, thanks! I usually get weird looks, or anticipatory noises over the forthcoming intellectual wank, instead of people wanting to hug me. :) What kind of philosophy class are you taking? Maybe your philosophy teacher isn't familiar with (bastardized) existential philosophy, which is about things just happening without any universal meaning, and the need/responsibility to create your own meaning and order. Then again, I'm not sure existentialism works well with ethics, and tackling social systems.

I'm taking a philosophy class this quarter, and on one of the first days we were talking about the reward/punishment view of things,

If you think about it, our (American) government is set up on a punishment type system. We punish those who don't follow the rules with jail time, or legal fines. And I think in psychology, there's operant conditioning (?) where it's about people behaving on a reward/punishment basis. But I don't think operant conditioning is fashionable now. To put a point on this rambling, your crazy racist guy may just be a more extreme, insane version of approaching the world. Like, there's a milder, more sensible form of reward/punishment.

The opinion that seems to be most popular among the people I know is that there are some standards that are open to interpretation, and some that are not. ... But they would hold things like "thou shalt not steal/kill/commit adultery" to be true regardless of what religion, culture, time or place the situation is occurring in.

I think those are the types of religious people I run into: "I don't care if you're a Christian or not, so long as you're a good person."

Leaving aside my urge to bring up extreme cases where you'd have to qualify the statements (e.g. society says killing is wrong except in war, the punishment of criminals, and sometimes euthanasia), if your morals are supposed to apply to everyone, then why frame it in religious terms at all? If you do pull the, "because it's in the bible/koran/scriptures" card, then you'll only appeal to the converted. For example, you can either argue, "The bible says not to kill," and only reach Christians, or you can say, "Killing is bad, because it causes harm to conscious beings, we've got to live in a cooperative society, blah blah," and reach a wider audience (religious, non-religious, etc.)

I suppose I can accept the idea that religion gives you a moral framework which you finetune yourself, or that it brings up the subject when you ordinarily wouldn't think about it in day to day life.

I'm also aware that relativism taken to an extreme can justify genocide. :( I still haven't figured out how to pull off a moderate, non-contradictory relativism.