What ought we tolerate as a community?
Thought experiment: You are a minority in a community, lets say a town. Today you get a new neighbor. You go over to greet the neighbor and while they are polite, they tell you in no uncertain terms that they do not believe that your ethnic group has a right to exist and that they believe your ethnic group is inferior and that it would be best if your ethnic group did not exist. However, they also state that since you two are members of a common community that they will swear off violence and treat you with common courtesy. In affect, while they hold certain beliefs they also affirm that these beliefs will not translate into violence insofar as civilization remains.
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?
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?
Comments (84)
I'm a white male that looks like your classic "conservative." So I'm used to all the feelers that are put out, you know, to test and see if I'm "one of the guys." I try to nip it in the bud, and most of the stupid people are smart enough to take a hint, scurrying back into the darkness when the light comes on. But, just as they may "take notes" about me, so do I about them.
The trick is, when is it time to go hunting? Society protects the stupid people too. And, of course, some folks need help with their infestation. We had a Civil War and a World War over that. I'd hate to see that happen again. How far do I go in making sure it does not? Hmmm? The eternal question. First the came for . . .
The community ought to leave them alone and afford them the right to believe what they want. Expelling them is to rob the community, and the believer, of any chance of reconciliation, redemption and compromise.
Ignore them. Yes, this is easy to say, but could be difficult to do. It depends on how attenuated the community is regarding ethnic issues. Remember, "Why can't we all just get along?"
A negligible price to pay.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
The chances seem to be that this new neighbor will inspire the community to expel the minority.
If we're going by the cockroach example, I wouldn't want them around my house whether I saw them or not. I just wouldn't want any cockroaches near my place of dwelling ever.
Quoting James Riley
I'm happy going hunting if by hunting we mean doxxing - revealing the neighbor's beliefs to an employer or other members of the community. I'd imagine if the scenario described in the OP were to exist it would be like a min-Cold war in the community where there is clear conflict and hatred, but none of it being open hostility.
Quoting baker
Fair enough - what belief are we expelling him for exactly? Could the neighbor retract that belief but still hang onto other offensive ones?
Quoting jgill
Quoting NOS4A2
Fair enough and credit to you if you can ignore him. I would have a hard time and it would be on my mind anytime I saw the neighbor or passed the neighbor's house. How would you deal with other neighbors who engaged with the bigot in conversation? You see what I mean when I said earlier that there's now possibly something resembling a mini-Cold war in the community.
Quoting tim wood
Ok, but do you believe that you're better than your neighbors because of your ethnic groups or just because your neighbors suck? One of these might make sense, the other does not make sense under any context.
Yeah, people in hell want ice water. It ain't about want. Like I said, they are going to be with us whether we like it or not.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Yes, cancel culture (aka consequences, aka ostracization, aka doxxing) are all viable forms of social engineering, better than the simmering pot, and more likely to stave off an explosion. That is keeping them under the fridge. The OP asked what to do with them and I believe that is how it done.
Hardly. You would only ossify the very beliefs you oppose. And someone could use the same argument to expel the minority.
I wouldn’t ignore him. I just wouldn’t expel him or sanction him for what he believes, just as I wouldn’t let the community expel the minority, and for the same reasons. Rather I would attempt to foster conversation between opposing parties.
If someone actually said this to a neigbour 'round where I live they would not survive for long :sweat:
And to be honest, although I would never resort to physicial violence, there would be colourful language said by me if I had a balls-out racist say that to my neighbours (lovely family from Pakistan). You see, although there is such a thing as a right to free speech and personal beliefs, etc. "as a community", as OP says, we should protect each other from hate like this.
Perhaps I believe this because I live in a country where racist speech receives less protection than in the United States of America.
I'm not sure we understand eachother.
I'm saying that if you're black in a white neighborhood and a white supremacist moves in and tells you that you don't deserve to live, but that he will not take action against you, then, if this becomes known to the other neighbors, chances are that _you_ will be the one to get expelled. Not the new racist neighbor.
Not necessarily because your old neighbors would become racists, but because they don't want trouble.
People generally tend to blame victims and those that are in any way in trouble, and so they want to get rid of such disliked, troubled people.
It's what people do, every day, and it seems worth it to them. Just blame the victim, just blame the one who is worse off.
I wouldn't enable racist behaviour but I would tolerate someone I knew had racist views, provided that they acted in a respectable manner.
It's better if everyone is playing a game of soccer with each other and tolerating or keeping these matters off to the side rather than declaring war on each other because of a difference in opinion. Deescalation, tolerance and empathy are key, focus on common ground rather than emphasise the differences.
I think what makes racism truly poisonous is not the views themselves but the intolerance, escalation and hate. If at a community gathering, the racist in the experiment was acting respectfully and courteously, without bringing up his racist views and others were calling him a cockroach and telling him to GTFO and threatening to dox him, I'd be siding with the racist. Such antagonistic behaviour isn't productive.
It's fine to say that there should be no more racist comments but that's about it.
What shouldn't be tolerated are actions that cause harm and disruption, things we can stop and make better. Domestic violence, animal abuse, child abuse, gang violence and so on. A racist comment, speech or joke - don't tolerate that but something like expulsion from the community should come after they've refused to stop and it's the last resort.
What does that look like, not tolerating racist comments, speech or jokes?
Can you give an example?
In my imagined scenario, the community as a whole is not racist. The racist is in the minority with his views. I also purposefully didn't specify which race/ethnic group was being targeted and what the race/ethnic group of the bigot was. In doing so, I seek to make this a more abstract question about how a community ought to deal with this type of matter.
Rebuking or expressing disapproval - depends on the context. To not tolerate means to act, which act depends on the person.
That means risking their revenge. How do you justify taking such a risk?
Some people might not take that risk and that's fine, instead, they just stop interacting with that person. It is unlikely that anyone will get physical or vandalise your stuff just because you called them out on a racist comment. It's true though, if I was dealing with a group of potentially violent young men, I might not think the risk is worth it, I would rather avoid a fight if I'm in a circumstance where one could occur and so I may refrain from saying anything. I've never been in such a situation where I felt I was taking a big risk to say my opinion but if someone was, it's understandable if they don't take that risk. Whatever shape that risk may take.
Heaven help you!
This conversation was something special.
Assuming there is no law that would govern on what the community is allowed to do, we don't expel them or punish physically because that neighbor didn't do "physical" damage to anyone, he just thinks what he thinks.
This individual like anyone else builds an image of itself in his life, as such he already expelled himself.
If the community is majorly against his views his punishment will be present in the community by social distancing which isn't pleasant, otherwise he wins.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
I think by taking the kind and weight of "damage" into account:
Saying you will do something is not the same as actually doing it. (the kind damage)
Saying to kill someone is not the same saying to demolish that person's car. (the weight of damage)
I don't think he should be expelled. A guilty mind absent a guilty act doesn't equal a violation.
Blame the victim for what?
Ideas and views aren't a crime, actions and instigating others to act might be.
But anyway. So you have your neighborhood Nazi. Not just the odd crazy or the recycling-Nazi complaining that you recycle your trash improperly, nope, but a genuine Nazi that believes that your existence in the World is harmful. These kinds of racists are rare.
What would be more typical would be a neighbor that would say that you don't have the right to live specifically there where you are now living. Go live somewhere else. And here's the interesting question: leave out the obvious racism that you have depicted of the neighbor, when do people start to think that here you and your living in that town is really the problem?
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?
For being targeted for racism, in this case.
Indeed. But can you be on good neighborly terms with someone who believes you should not exist?
That it might be difficult to tolerate those who hate me, that doesn't provide a basis for their expulsion from my presence. I don't know that the object of the law ought to be peace and harmony generally but only that it should be a demand that a certain level of minimal conduct be adhered to. I emphasize the word "conduct" because in the OP, the only violation I could decipher was a depraved heart. Until there is an act, or even a reasonable belief an act might occur, I think we are stuck letting Archie Bunker rant away.
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: Quoting 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.
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.
Does their continued presence diminish your faith in humanity, or your faith that life is worth living?
If not, how so?
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.
Quoting 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.
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.
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’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...
In the scenario the racist also verbalizes that she would treat the person with common courtesy. Where exactly does the injury occur?
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 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.
Agree.
Quoting 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.
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?
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!
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.
Yes, I can.
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.
"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.
And you talk to them, greet them, as if all was well?
Not for the one who casts the first stone. That person comes out the winner.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
A question that commonly arises around free-speech discussions is: "Who sets the grounds for what is permissible?" Personally I cannot think of any individual or group of individuals throughout history with enough intelligence, foresight, or moral fortitude to decide what should or should not be believed and said.
Much of the rules and reasoning of censorship (or in this case, banishment and ostracism) is, at least rhetorically, centered around the fear of some future effect of speech and beliefs on the public welfare, as if someone could make such predictions. Examples include the "bad tendency" test of British common law and the "clear and present danger" standard once used to punish anti-war activism in the United States. Of course, the danger was never clear nor present, the tendency undefined, and such fears were as fatuous as any fever-dream. We should be wary of these people. For the simple reason that there is no known way of gauging the future influence of rhetoric on human action, I would argue these predictions were used to disguise threats to orthodoxy beneath an air of concern for the general welfare.
In short, we shouldn't give anyone the power to make such decisions, and we should tolerate everything short of action that impedes another's liberty.
Young jedi, you yet have a lot to learn.
Let's try it. Use your words and thoughts to set the power hierarchy between yourself and I.
I'm not referencing some real event here - my situation is entirely hypothetical and in the situation that I envisioned the community is not racist or sympathetic to racism, the community is mostly just composed of relatively isolated individuals who are not racist.
Quoting Hanover
I think a formal expulsion would set a dangerous precedent, but I was more concerned here with softer measures like doxxing or social shunning.
Quoting ssu
Yeah, these types of racists are definitely rare. I don't think I've ever actually met one. I'm just envisioning a thought experiment here and this is in no way a real situation that I'm involved with. I think you're right that "thought crimes" shouldn't be prosecuted or met with any type of legal penalty, but I'm more talking about soft power measures like doxxing or something along those lines. I would start to wonder whether drastic action is needed if more racists like the aforementioned one were to move in. That would seem to be a very interesting question.
Woah, you're coming down to the right of me here - how about that for a change of pace? You're usually to the left of me.
I understand wanting to take the high road here, but are you telling me that you're not going to talk about it to your other neighbors? Once that ball gets rolling good luck getting it to stop.
Quoting Outlander
You're telling me that "being the bigger person" means not sharing this knowledge with the rest of the neighborhood? Quoting Outlander
This is an interesting perspective to have. So by not acting, we don't "create" a problem and in turn help keep the peace? That's the high road to take? The neighbor is polite by the way and gives common courtesy, do you return those courtesies? Would you be creating a problem if you didn't return those courtesies?
:100:
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Yeah, I think we gotta ostracize. It's on the community to do so, and I'm not calling for a legal expulsion here as other posters has insinuated. It probably needs to come down to community-level actions or behaviors to treat the cancer.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Oh 100% - it's funny because other posters were saying we should have an honest discussion with the neighbor but that really isn't what we ought to be doing because an actual discussion implies that we'd be open his views when we're really not.
So you're basically approving of the first amendment?
Oh I support the first amendment entirely - the neighbor certainly has a right to say what he wants to say.
Yeah, we can tolerate it. I'm certainly not saying we should lynch the neighbor or attack the neighbor's house with molotov cocktails in the middle of the night. I'm not even saying we should expel the neighbor through formal legal procedure, although there may be some argument to do so.
The neighbor is really just your problem. The neighbor is polite, do you return their courtesies? Do you show up at a neighborhood brunch or dinner where the neighbor is present? How do you react to others in the neighborhood getting acquainted with this neighbor?
These are the questions that I'm interested in: What individual or community level actions are happening or should happen?
The most effective way for any society is simply to disregard or think that the person is crazy, or has obviously some personal problems. Of course crazy people can be harmful to themselves and to others, but we treat them and the whole situation differently.
I think here at first it's important to think about this in a broader sense:
When is the situation so alarming that we ought to take drastic action in what otherwise would be in the category of "freedom of thought"? And there the answer is again when someone takes or some people take these issues to physical actions. Just some crank having crazy thoughts won't do. It's the situation when we understand that the views are widespread and not just people with personal problems cherish them. Still, there has to be a true breakdown in social cohesion in the society and likely political and economic turmoil. Then people can get "crazy". Then "hate speech" etc. can really be dangerous. As the saying goes, when people don't have anything to lose, they can lose it.
I think the real problem is that we are too adaptive. If someone is killed in our neighborhood we are shocked. If another person is killed the next day we aren't so shocked anymore as we have already adapted to the fact that people do get killed in our neighborhood. We see then the past having this idyllic peace that has been shattered and that a new reality has taken over. In fact, to state that some horrendous crime has been "an unfortunate yet a rare singular event", especially when the perpetrator is caught and put behind bars, draws harsh criticism for the security minded people who advocate that this is the new normal.
And we have a model for the worst possible outcome, a genocide, in Zombie-movies. Because in order for a true genocide to happen, people simply have to think of those being killed as zombies, not being humans. Or simply there being a war and the others being the enemy.
Sure. I'm saying that people generally don't want trouble. And in an effort to avoid trouble, they will do things that can look racist, homophobic etc. even though they aren't motivated by such intentions.
"You're X, the new neighbor is against X. I don't want any trouble, so I'm going to shun you. It's probably best if you move out."
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Indeed, there now exists a (potential) conflict of interests. Your status in the community, since you're now the target of someone's ism, is in question. Your relationship with other neighbors is now put to the test. Will they still accept you, will they demote you, or will they shun you because you've become the target of someone's ism?
It's similar to the situation you find yourself in if your kid gets beaten up by the neighbor's kid or vice versa, or if a drunk neighbor runs you over with the car.
A neighbor isn't automatically a friend, nor an ally.
Lets put you in the neighbor's shoes here.
Lets say one of your neighbors - an acquaintance - comes to you with incontrovertible proof that another one of your neighbors said what the bigot said. You don't have strong pre-existing ties to either of these two people. Has your attitude changed towards the offender? Do you smile and wave next time you see the bigot? If the bigot tries to talk to you and befriend you, how do you react?
What makes them victims? Your idea that thoughts/beliefs alone cannot harm others is based, presumably, on the fact that thoughts/beliefs are private, and have no causal effect on others wellbeing. Wouldn’t any acts done in private that do not involve others meet this same criteria?
Actually, I know a similar situation first-hand. What I do is I make an effort to be professional and that's it. Don't smile, don't chit chat, don't get involved. This always seems to be the best policy: not becoming too cordial too soon, but giving things time and waiting for facts to become known.
Another example I remember back from college: A classmate whose father was a Serb told me about this. Another classmate told her to her face that Serbs should go "back where they came from". Meaning, one girl said to another girl that people like that other girl's father should go away (and presumably, her included, since she was also half-Serbian). Yet the girl who said that carried on as if all was well between the two. The girl whose father was a Serb told me that and asked me for advice on how to treat the other girl, given that up to that point, they were on very good terms.
I think that's a reasonable response, and I think a good description of this response would be that you're socially distancing yourself, which I would consider a form of ostracizing. You're emotionally and socially distancing yourself.
Quoting baker
I wonder whether the girl was Bosnian. That would put the genocide within a generation.
The way you phrase this question makes it ambiguous who the community is identified with. Is the community the "majority," which includes the rabid racist? Or is the community on the side of the minority in this case??
Call it a town.
All communities have majorities and minorities, it's just a matter of the criteria.
In this example the community doesn't know anything because you're the only one who has heard, but if word were to spread you would be confident that the majority would sympathize with you.
This is highly questionable. Even good friends and family can turn on you if you find yourself in trouble, what to speak of semi-stangers/acquaintances like people in the same town.
People generally don't want trouble and they tend to shun those that are in any kind of trouble (such as being targeted by a racist; it can be anything from losing your job, to getting cancer or being robbed).
Siding with the person in trouble will possibly mean trouble for you.
Quoting Pantagruel
I think so. I'm a Jew in a community where liberal Christians are the majority and I'm confident that they would condemn any act of blatant anti-semitism or racism. Half of the houses in my neighborhood have those "black lives matter" or those "no human is illegal" signs.
Quoting baker
I don't think you're in trouble in this example though. Yeah, I understand that people can distance themselves from you if you lose your job or fall into financial hardship, but if someone simply says a comment to you I wouldn't classify that as a major life downfall.
It's likely the racist who has gotten him or herself into trouble here, depending on the community.
??
How do you get to that from what I said??
It was really the best that I could do with your response.
If that's your observation about humanity, then I'm sorry but the people you're around are just really shitty. Like seriously, someone in your community gets cancer and people just start shunning them because "they don't want trouble." If I ever heard someone saying that I would know immediately that they're a complete moron.
Similarly, if someone's response to virulent racism towards another member of the community is "I don't want trouble" then that person is a coward and deserves zero respect.
If this is how you honestly expect things to go down then people are just basically stupid, cowardly, and useless.
People don't want to be asked, much less forced to be charitable or compassionate.
If you end up in some kind of trouble (whether it's getting cancer or losing your job, or being the victim of a racist attack), people will generally start to see you as weak, as a liability, as not worth investing in, and they will likely consider you responsible for whatever hardship befell you. So they won't want to have anything to do with you.