What do you do when people spout racist drivel?

[David <dfrankiswork@netscape.net>]

Heidi asked (first quoting a Washington Post article):

> Do you have any advice for how to handle situations in which 
people,
> whether it be relatives, friends, acquaintances, co-workers, 
service
> providers, whoever, make hateful comments or jokes that are
> anti-Semitic, anti-black, anti-gay, anti-Hispanic, you name it? I 
am way
> too old not to know how to handle these situations. I don't 
encourage
> the remarks in any way, but I don't condemn them either. I usually 
just
> stand there looking like an idiot and try to change the subject. 

> So the question is, just how bad is it to take the subject-changing
> approach, versus the Vocal and Righteous Objection? And can that
> "badness level" change in different circumstances?

I think these are not the only options, and the answer is very 
dependent on circumstances.

If, say, we were in a discussion about recruitment to our company, I 
would consider it essential to make it clear where I stand.  If the 
person had influence in the matter I would look for ways to take it 
further.

If it was a social occasion I would not want either to change the 
subject or rush in with my view.

IMO, it is more interesting and more fruitful to *encourage* the 
thread of conversation.  For example, I would have loved to have met 
Anna's dad, and listened to what he had to say about Mussolini, 
particularly as he was old enough to have had actual memories of 
that era, possibly even to have been politically active.

It's not just that you get the chance to hear all sorts of things 
you might not otherwise, I also think that giving people room to 
expound their views in the long run helps them to see where those 
views might have their limitations.

(I confess also to a slight naughtiness: you know how on the main 
list we from time to time talk about how a character might be 
horrible to know in real life, but is great fun to read about.  
Well, I do the reverse thing: observe real people and enjoy the 
experience as if they were a character in a book.)

Humour's good too, IMO.  How about 'Goodness me, a controversial 
topic.  Do you want a five minute argument, or the full half-hour?'

If I were a member of the group being attacked, and the person 
didn't know it, I'd get that in pretty fast, though.  That rather 
puts the ball in their court.  If they *did* know it, we are in 
completely different territory, IMO.

I sometimes sometimes wonder if people feel that if a comment is 
made, and a stand *not* taken, then some kind of defeat is being 
suffered.  Whereas if they state their position, then a record of a 
dissenting view will be kept in the minutes of the world's 
existence.  I see it sometimes in main list debates about matters of 
lesser importance.  As if, when a controversial (eg shipping 
position) view is stated, it will be understood as the last word or 
the consensus view of the group if it is not contested.

IMO, we can put unnecessary pressure on ourselves in these 
situations through thought patterns of that sort.

David