Beyond Religion. Beyond Atheism.
Web Pages Humanist.com. Good people welcomed. "Mankind is not likely to salvage civilization unless he can evolve a system of good and evil which is independent of heaven and hell." - George Orwell
Are you trying to be good and make the world a better place but seems like everyone else is arguing past each other, making enemies out of people who should be friends? Are you tired of the splintering and division that weakens our society? Shocked by how little goodwill seems to be left in the world? Are you afraid of befriending or voicing support for someone with alternate viewpoints, for fear of being ostracized yourself?
● Society provided love, wisdom, and community, without all the misogyny, war, corruption, and useless dogma? ● Morality was logical and reasonable, right down to it’s core, but still allowed and promoted imagination, compassion, love, and awe? ● Philosophy gave you real tools to navigate the real world in a better way, arming you to have a better life for yourself and be a better parent while improving lives for your children and others? ● … And what if it all got better over time, by design?
Humanist.com is a nonprofit social community based on understanding, inclusion, love, and activism. We seek to make the world a better place by creating a community where the values of Humanism are required and enforced.
Humanism is the basis for morality and the antidote to hate. It is the philosophy that we as humans can and do create and live by a shared morality based on the goal of decreasing suffering and improving people’s lives It’s all the stuff we all already agree is good.
Humanism is not a religion, but parts of if can be found in the cores of all of the world’s religions under the guise of “divine morality.” Take any religion and strip away the supernaturalism, the arcane behavior prohibitions, corruption, and outgrouping and you are left with the purely Humanist ideals like “turn the other cheek” and “Love thy neighbor.” What we need are tools to see past the supernatural components of religion and see, regrow, and delight in the Humanism that lay hidden beneath.
We seek to reduce net suffering and increase length and quality of life on Earth as a singular, practical, objective moral Good. Based in science, followed to the extreme, and completely cognizant of the individuality involved in the judgement calls between sentience and suffering, we are united in the common idea that objectively, suffering is bad, and increasing quality and length of life is good. ● All life on earth that can feel suffering avoids suffering relative to the degree that it can perceive it. We therefore call suffering objectively bad. ● We call therefore the overall reduction of suffering, bearing in mind the ability to perceive the different varied amounts of suffering, to be an objective good. ● You matter, because you have the ability to reduce the suffering of others. If one can objectively say that the suffering among living beings is objectively bad, then it follows that an objectively good purpose of life is to improve the lives of others. If we can defend a practically-objective moral good, then we can derive an equally-practically-objective purpose of life.
We don’t ask for obedience, tithing, or even agreement (in fact, open, civil debate is what’s needed to ensure that positions are tested and improved). We do ask that you try to be good and promote trying to be good. Specifically that means that when you interact with other people on this site you ALWAYS endeavor to be civil and to see them as a whole person outside of their specific opinions. We hope you take that mentality to other networks and indeed your daily life. We invite all who wish to build the society we want to live in to join Belong, be good, and be happy! Why Humanism is Needed Today Social networking sites like Facebook thrive on conflict and feed it to us. They see our likes and dislikes and manipulate us via our feeds so we keep coming back to fight those “other” people some more, selling ad space at the expense of civility itself. Facebook wants everyone to dehumanize everyone else, to the greatest degree possible, because facebook’s primary product is the echo chambers we create using their products.
We aren’t like that here. We seek civil and constructive conflict resolution, humization for every member of every conflict, and personal growth for every person in the community we are building. We don’t avoid conflict. We don’t expect everyone to pass a purity test - in fact, we prepare for everyone to fail at one time or another, address the conflict civilly, and remain a welcomed vibrant piece of our positive community.
We also promote redemption, mercy, and forgiveness as hallmark attributes of Humanism. All three are virtues which descend directly from the practically-objective goods that derive from today’s realities.
They’re also really difficult to do. It’s much easier to stay angry, hold a grudge, or throw someone out of your life because they’ve simply done something wrong, and so now you don’t want them in your life anymore. In today’s society, forgiveness is seen as condoning the crime, mercy is considered weak against perpetrators and setting a precedent to allow bad behavior, and redemption, even when earnestly sought, is rarely granted vs ostracization. Individuals and society on the whole takes the easy path so often we have lost the skill of forgiveness.
Our Internet culture today also normalizes ostracization and outgrouping. Someone who bucks a preferred narrative (aka fails a purity test) may be ostracized and shunned far too soon, shutting down discussion on the topic. This creates an echo chamber cycle - if some people disagrees they are dehumanized, attacked as sympathizers and ostracized by the community., The onlookers then become afraid to support the non-orthodox speaker for fear of the same consequences. This all feeds division, limits communication and creates an “echo chamber” that reinforces opinions, right or wrong, by prohibiting discussion and debate.
The more one drifts from the preferred narrative, the more likely one is to be outgrouped, and those who object to the outgrouping in general (those who oppose echo tunnels and champion civil discourse) are most likely to be immediately shunned. This is all a protection mechanism for the echo chambers, bolstered by the inherent resistance we all have to changing our minds and challenges to our preconceptions and prejudices. People don’t like to be told (or worse, proven) that are wrong, so the internet-facilitated echo tunnels provide a method to shield their opinions from debate.
Humanism provides a mechanism to quell the creation and effects of echo tunnels. By providing the Practically-objective good as a starting point from which to discuss, Humanism provides common ground from the getgo, and a basis for arguing a point without attacking or dehumanizing the other side. For example, two Humanists from opposite sides of the “border protection” issue would first immediately find common ground - the decrease in suffering and increase in well being is good - and then try to prove via argument that their side does that better.
By providing the common ground as a starting point, , Humanism places both sides on the same side - a team striving to solve a problem together - rather than two opponents trying to convince each other.
Dehumanization is more of a threat today than ever before in history due to the advent of the Internet and the emergence of the virtual society. The concept of the “on-line community” has forever changed the way we interact and communicate and we as a society have to change with it.
Until recently, society has been primarily comprised of face-to-face relationships, and the people we as individuals knew were few and often permanently in our lives. Back then, it was to everyone’s advantage to humanize and tolerate each other because we were more dependant on a small group of people for all our societal and support needs, so we humanized by default (we had no choice, we knew them all too well).
Now, we have many “friends” with whom we don’t have close personal connections, Instead of how many close friend we have, we measure our societal support in terms of likes & comments, which is substantially less feedback than when we spoke to each other face to face, and this leads to interpretation of support fed by ego. Someone may like a post intending to imply support for the poster speaking out on an issue, but the poster may infer support for the position itself.
In addition, “Friends” are now so plentiful that they have become disposable. Virtual purity tests have become the norm, and if friends fail those tests, even to a small degree, they are often dehumanized, lumped in with other dehumanized people who may share similar or related views on this one subject (“they’re a nazi / bigot / idiot”), and discarded. The common practice has become not about understanding or finding common ground, but rather unfriending people who disagree, and often all of their friends, because again, dehumanized friends are disposable.
The inevitable result is an almost infinite splintering of society and the near elimination of civil discourse which has yielded a departure from any kind of morality that benefits today’s society in favor of mob justice and keyboard isolationism. As a result of these changes, we now dehumanize by default -- there often has to be a reason why we don’t dehumanize someone! The ease of creating our own, personal echo chambers allows us to shelter ourselves from challenge which removes a corrective mechanism against extremism. The current trend of deplatforming controversial speakers is a good example of how this online social phenomenon affects real life society.
This rampant dehumanization has deteriorated our social discourse and we have ceased listening to each other. Impeding or eliminating any possibility for transformation, forgiveness or redemption. We’ve stopped seeking answers and instead blame groups of people, political parties, or organizations for our problems. Dehumanization begets dehumanization.
In fact, though it is quite obvious, the world has never seen this level of dehumanization before, and it’s becoming dangerous on every level. Whether from the individual, close circles of friends, or international perspective, dehumanization reduces information exchange and allows bad ideas to take root and fester. We as a society need to be able to talk calmly, clearly, and rationally about long-term impact of modern life on future generations, and that which interferes with our ability to do so is and will continue to affect us all. We need to change course to retain and rescue our humanity.
Today’s growth of people who eschew organized religion need a modern, secular, defensible morality that will truly improve life because it is based on reality and addresses the real problems we have in today’s society. We need modern morals, beginning with the re-realization that people, including ourselves, are complex people.
■ Member’s build up a reputation score based on their adherence to the humanistic principles of conduct[link] and their activity on the site. ■ Our members enforce a ban on “troll behavior” and dehumanization by flagging offending content which can result in warnings and deletions. ■ We encourage forgiveness, mercy, and redemption for those who have done wrong but seek to do better, ■ Fosters civil discussions on any topic, often based on the Socratic Method to further truth, reason, and inclusion via common goals, ■ Provides forums for civil discussions on any topic, often based on the Socratic Method to further truth, reason, and inclusion via common goals. ■ Members are encouraged to take a pledge to act humanistically.
An Introduction to Humanism What is Dogma? “Dogma” is defined as “a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.” Dogma is very useful if you’re a person in power, because it gives you the power to make demands that must be obeyed, because dogma can never be questioned. However since dogma has its basis in the need for power, not in the realities of today, it becomes less useful, and less true, as society changes. Dogma’s ability to help people judge right from wrong begins at “poor”, because that's never its real intent, and gets worse from there as reality evolves and dogma lays stagnant. There is no mechanism for judgement in Dogma, only blind obedience to what bis accepted to be perfect, objective truth, which is why we see sects of religions eschewing progress in favor of misogyny, Xenophobia, LGBT hatred, and other thinking that we, in the rest of society, consider “backwards.” There is also rarely a way for the person to be redeemed other than with their god (maybe)
“I am a Humanist” … Means What?
There is only one primary rule in Humanism: try to advance Goodness by increasing well being and reducing suffering. Humanism focuses on how we treat others and ourselves, and uses the concept of “there is good in everyone… even if it’s wrapped in problems” as a way to equalize us as teammates on the side of Good. Humanism teaches us to: - Realize that someone with a different world view is not “evil” or less human, but rather, most likely, a good person trying to reduce suffering and increase well being as they see it through their personal perception filters, - Have humility and be aware that we all suffer from cognitive dissonance and faulty confidence levels, - Give naysayers and most wrongdoers a path of transformation / redemption so we can keep a cohesive diverse society which challenges cognitive dissonance and informs our confidence levels, - Use civil discourse as a weapon against disagreeable viewpoints, as opposed to a courtesy offered to extremists espousing them, - Remember that dehumanization is both natural and bad for us, and the quest to humanize other people is a never-ending fight between our instinctual tribalism and the Common Good.
The basis for these teachings come from understanding the human condition. Contrary to religion’s fixed dogma [above link:dogma], Humanism provides a logical, reality-based morality designed intelligently to reunite humanity by identifying a set of “virtues” (kindness, charity, generosity, skepticism, forgiveness, etc.) and “vices” (blind faith, malice, bigotry, oppression, etc) that are rooted in objective truths. That is, good can be proven to be good, and bad can be proven to be bad, because of the way they affect quality and length of life of all people (and even other animals). It is our job as Humanists to constantly reconsider the goodness of our actions.
Our “undogma” provides a logical and defensible moral structure to live by and to teach children that literally will lead you to lead fuller, more enriched, longer lives. Logic-based morality is easy to understand and free of vacuous arguments like using “Mysterious Ways” or “or else you’ll burn in hell?” to explain inaccuracies or inconsistencies (why did the benevolent God create evil and suffering, why doesn’t God just kill or stop Satan, etc), because there are no inconsistencies to sidestep!
If someone questions a tenet of Humanism (e.g, “it’s good to reduce suffering”), the discussion begins, and unlike dogmatic religion, Humanism evolves with society’s morality, which is why Humanists support such modern ideals as civil rights, gender equality, and the separation of church and state - concepts religions still fight because their dogma is unchangeable (and grows further from societal norms over time).
Humanism teaches us to “Humanize” each other. Humans are social animals, like chimps, dolphins, whales, and other higher forms of life. As such, we have evolved the need to feel empathy, concern, and compassion for our fellow human because we, as a group, survive longer when we care about each other and gather resources as a group. However, the same evolutionary forces that gave us empathy and sympathy for each other also gave us “outgrouping” - that is, tribalism. When a tribe competes for resources as a tribe, everyone in the tribe benefits, but they benefit more if they don’t care about taking resources from competing tribes, even if those competing tribes suffer and die as a result. In other words, it’s easier to live when a tribe has cohesiveness in and internal compassion, but sees the other tribes as less than human and does not regard them with the same care. The fuel for tribalism is a collective fear, mistrust and hate of a common enemy. If the enemy can be dehumanized, it is far easier for the tribe members to collectively view the opposers as neither having nor deserving kind or even humane treatment. The tribalism instinct gives us the the propensity to dehumanize people from outside our societies (or social circles), which makes it much easier to overlook our compassion and empathy, which in turn can lead to war and other atrocities.
Humanism teaches that most people, even those with distasteful opinions, are complex people with their own life experiences and perspectives.
Humanization is the antidote to hate because it inoculates against prejudice and hostile outgrouping including bullying, sexism, racism, misogyny, ageism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, and xenophobia Humanist realize that if we demonize, profile, or categorize people as evil, bad, or “just stupid” even as they espouse wrong or horrible views, that they will shut down, recalcify/harden their views, not listen/hear/understand our points and reasoning. They will not learn, and we will not succeed in forwarding the cause of Good.
Instead, it is far more effective to first emphasize the fundamental, humanist common goals/needs with the other person - treating them as human being with their own experiences and perspectives. If you agree on common “good” and simply disagree on how to get there, enemies suddenly can become allies working toward a common goal, as opposed just just dismissing the other side as the same is done back to you.
This is not to overlook that some people are bad people and need to be separated from society. A murderer should be removed from society until they are no longer a threat. The point however, is that good people can be wrong too, and they need to be treated like good, wrong people, not evil outcasts.
Humanism reminds us that civil discourse is a tool to be used against weak/ bad / wrong / disagreeable arguments, not something you do to be nice to your opponent. You are not only showing courtesy when you are civil, you are using reasoned and logical arguments, and that beats vitriol and hate every time.
Humanism helps us realize that justice must include a transformative path for those who do bad things - regardless of the circumstance - and not just focus on punishment. Humanizing each other leads us to realize that crimes and other misdeeds are done for complex reasons by complex people, not always evil people out to do bad.
Society benefits when troubled / bad / misguided people transform themselves into better, more functional members of society, and people benefit (living longer, happier lives) from being functional members of society. We must therefore teach and practice mindful and earned rehabilitation, forgiveness, mercy, and redemption, not endless ostracization. Expelling people from society, or even your circle of friends, actually worsens the problem, by allowing the issue to fester and resentment to build, often planting the seeds for future unpleasantry as animosity grows unchecked. If, however, the opponents see each other as people approaching the same good from different directions, a path to transformation is presented and both sides can communicate without demonizing, and those who have done wrong are given a real honest path towards redemption. Summary: How Does Humanism Help Humanists become a part of the solution by being aware of their role in the problem and observing reason-based guidance on life and social interactions while humanizing those with whom they disagree. ● Humanism guides people not to dehumanize others, but rather to understand that someone with a different world view is not “evil” or less human. ● Humanism encourages humility by educating its adherents about their own cognitive dissonance and faulty confidence levels with the awareness that neuroscience is still in its infancy. ● Humanism teaches that civil discourse is a weapon against extremism, not a courtesy offered to extremists espousing disagreeable viewpoints. ● Humanism provides a mechanism for forgiveness, mercy, and redemption that has been lost with the advent of the virtual society and the abandonment of religion. We defeat the “culture of fear” with the ability to ask for and receive community acceptance in the face of regretful behavior or diversity of opinion. ● Humanism improves your awareness of your effect on the people and spaces you occupy by showing how these aspects make the world a better place and you a better person for it.
Humanism can help you live a happier, and indeed longer life, by providing a mechanism to effectively interact with others. Humanism repairs the destruction dehumanization has caused, rebuilds and revitalizes society and social discourse, and is indeed our best and perhaps only chance to retain our humanity today.
Imagine a transformed society - the society you want to be a part of - and imagine your future you as an active vibrant member of that community. Imagine less hate and more love, less yelling and more discussion, less ignorance and more information. Imagine the future culture where individuality is prized, and purity tests are a thing of the past. Imagine people starting from the common ground of the Common Good. This is our vision, and we hope you help us transform society so we can all not only survive but thrive as technology advances, life becomes even more virtual, and dehumanization becomes even easier and more dangerous
The following sections discuss some of the details of Humanism, including how morality is defined, the Atheism/Agnosticism/Humanism relationships (you’re probably all three), Civil Discussions, and Mercy/Forgiveness/redemption. Links to each of the following sections: [link1] [link2] [link3] [link4] On “Practically-Objective” Morality Since religion was invented it has laid claim to the idea of morality. After all, what better way is there to outgroup outsiders than to say that morality itself is reserved for the ingroup only, and that being outside the group is akin to being immoral? Every religion claims to be the founder of morality, and indeed, this idea, when paired with religious dogma, claims that the morality espoused by that religion is unquestionable and perfect. In other words, morality is objective, right for all, because their god is the One True God - everyone’s god. This idea of objective, right-for-all-for-all-time morality is then used to reinforce the religion’s hold on its flock by using dogmatism to squelch dissent, because dissent against any part of the morality is dissent against God.
If dissent against a group’s morality is equal to blasphemy against its god, the inevitable conclusion is that the morality is perfect and unquestionable - objective because it comes from outside the Earth - and this gives religion control over how that morality is used and if it changes (which is does rarely and always with resistance). Religion needs control, so religion pushes the idea of objective morality for its own sake.
So the issue of objective morality takes another turn when it comes to religion. Believers see their holy books as true, but choose which of the passages in the holy books are true first, and then decide that those passages represent objective morality. But holy books are full of contradictory or vague messages, so anyone can find passages to defend and validate their beliefs. This is why we have people using religion to protect their extremist views. Islamic Jihadists, the Westboro Baptists, the KKK,they all are sure their god agrees with them and what they are doing is good and objectively moral. After all, they found passages in their holy books, the same holy books that say “thou shalt not kill”, that support their twisted views.
The reality is, religion’s morality is not objective. It’s completely subjective, as all morality is, and then called “objective” by the religion and its adherents.
The problem is that if people are just picking what they agree with and calling it “perfectly moral”, then they are less likely to reexamine those beliefs, and more likely to fight harder for them.
Humanism is a different way of looking at morality and that gives us as a group the authority to set what we call “Practically Objective” morality, which is to say, we are choosing to call these moralities “objective” and moving on from there. That’s exactly what religion does, but we are admitting it, owning it, and building from it without dogma.
And so, what is “It”, anyway? What truth can we say is so close to objectively true that we call it “practically objective”, something on which we are so sure we can build a society around it?
A host of atheist and religious philosophers and scientists have argued this position, but it all boils down the to quality of life, and the amount to suffering. It can be argued that all sentient life forms, as they are ranked more and more sentient, all try to escape suffering and to improve their length and quality of life. And so if all sentient life principally agrees that suffering is bad and length and quality of life is good, we think that’s a good example of practically objective morality: Given the degree of sentience of the entity enduring the suffering, the reduction of that suffering is a practically-objective Good, and the increase is a practically-objective Bad. Conversely, the lengthening and increase in quality of life, relative to the level to which it can be perceived, is practically-objective Good, and the shortening or decreasing the quality of life is practically-objective bad.
Yes, we picked that. Yes, that means it's not objective. And yes, we also agree that the weighting of sentience vs perceived suffering is a judgement call in and of itself, and that each person will make that choice differently! We get it, but this is our line in the sand and it’s based on science and evidence. Religions all do the same thing - they pick what is objective - but they pick based on selfish needs or dogma or something other than science, and they don’t admit it’s not really objective.
While religions define morality in absolute terms, humanists see morality more practically, adjusting it to fit the situation with the goal to reduce suffering. As such, we are opening ourselves up for discussion, but in the meantime we are basing the morality of Humanism on this very firm soil. Civility in the face of Hostility. Not everyone sees it our way. Not everyone thinks in terms of decreasing suffering or increasing well being, though most would agree to those ideals in theory (because they’re practically objective), and if they do, some don’t think of their positions as contrary to that morality. Indeed, most people see their views as superior and even more beneficial to the world, than anyone else’s. In the face of disagreement, especially when dealing with someone whose positions are not well thought out, a common practice has become to dehumanize each other rather than seek common ground with civil discourse. However, when all the components of this societal phenomenon are broken down, it becomes apparent that civil discourse is the only rational response to even the most hostile opponent with the most disturbing viewpoints.
Dehumanization Cycles and the Culture of Fear Of course, dehumanzition often goes in both directions, It’s common to want to defend ourselves against attacks with attacks. It’s tempting to think fair is fair, but they aren’t being fair, so why should I bother with civility?! These people don’t deserve civility!
This mentality creates a dehumanization cycle that is exasperated online with the formation of echo chambers and the “Culture of Fear”
● People who disagree hate each other and don’t care about each other’s welfare. It’s no longer rare for people on one side or another to overtly and verbally wish for members of the other political side to suffer or die. Indeed, this can get extreme as we see in the violence erupting because people don’t see each other as human. ● People who mostly agree are afraid to voice even the smallest dissent for fear of outgrouping, which increases echo chambers to the detriment of society and the participants of the ingroup themselves. They say they agree out of fear, and their possibly-important viewpoint goes unsaid which makes the perceived size of the prevailing opinion swell, all while the silent dissenters’ friends also go silent for lack of support, even if they agree on the dissent. Indeed, echo chambers are populated in part with silent dissenters who don’t know each other, feel completely alone, and are afraid to speak out. ● The two factors above create the culture of fear reminiscent of the McCarthy era, where anyone who strays from the most favored, often most extreme, views is seen as a traitor for the other side. All trump supporters are anti-gay, anti-woman, and pro assault against women, and if you disagree with that, you’re one of them. All Obama supporters are socialists, muslim apologists or muslims themselves, and champions of selling fetal body parts, and if you disagree with that sentiment, you’re one of them. ● And each time one side says something bad and dehumanizing about the other, the response is a greater degree of dehumanization and vitriol from the opposing side. It is a horrible massive dehumanization cycle that is dividing our country.
And no, it’s not OK when we do it but bad when they do it, even though it feels like it is. There is no doubt about it - landing zingers feels good, especially when your echo tunnel applauds. But that’s not the point. The point is reducing suffering, and feeding this cycle is not helping anyone to that end. Conflating Extreme Views with Extreme Rhetoric Activists look at the world these days with panic in their heart and fire in their eyes. They see the actions of their adversaries as extreme, and they hear the words of their adversaries which are extreme, and the immediate gut reaction is to fight, fight hard, and fight dirty. They respond with dehumanization and rhetoric of their own, and the cycle continues, because in these dire times, the don’t feel there is time for civility. They don’t believe civil discourse is appropriate when facing someone who is so dead set against their rights or how they believe the country should be. The problem is that they are actually helping the other side when they dismiss civility.
The common reaction to lies and rage is outrage and more rage. It’s easy and it feels good to respond to rage with rage. It feels good to shout someone down, get in a few good jabs, and make the bad guys feel bad. The problem is it doesn’t work; it doesn’t make the other side feel bad at all. In fact, responding to rage with rage entrenches your opponent. It makes your opponent see you as even less of a person and allows them to dehumanize you more, increasing the likelihood that they will continue their path dogmatically and reinforcing both of your echo tunnels with an increased hatred for each other.
This is a key flaw of the social extremists - they see extreme politics and rhetoric, and have extremely different political views, so they respond with extreme discourse (dehumanizing, demonizing, dismissing) to counter the rhetoric to which they’ve been subjected. But this is the exact wrong thing to do, because it perpetuates and aggravates the Dehumanization Cycle resulting in less caring about both the people the issue is affecting, and the people championing the cause.
It’s important to note that the side which dehumanizes and demonizes expects to be dehumanized and demonized back. They are expecting the pushback they are being given by the other side, and are indeed looking forward to it. Being demonized back underscores just how right they are by highlighting the fact that the other side is unreasonable and will call them names instead of making a good point (this, in ironic response to demonization in the first place, which is unnoticed by the speaker, because this behavior is at least somewhat innate).
Indeed, while extreme political positions are valid, important, and in some cases absolutely necessary to hold, Social Extremeness, in the form of dehumanization, demonization, and ostracization, is exactly the wrong path to take to change the extremist’s mind.
This is so important as we move into the future with an increasingly divided political landscape, because our instincts are telling us to do the exact wrong thing! Social extremists don’t get this very important point: Civil discourse is not yielding a position, it’s wielding a weapon! In fact, the humanization and non-ostracization aspects of Humanism actively work against extreme negative rhetoric far better than its extreme counterpart.
How Humanism Improves Civil Discourse “Left-wing and right-wing political ideologies have themselves become secular religions, providing people with a community of like-minded brethren, a catechism of sacred beliefs, a well-populated demonology, and a beatific confidence in the righteousness of their cause.” ― Steven Pinker, Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress
If there is one place where the need for social improvement is most evident, it is the area of civil discourse. All over the country and all throughout the Internet, the apparent demise of calm civil discussions and their replacement with hate, extreme labeling and dismissal, and intellectual echo chambers dominates those of us who miss such ideals.
And we are right to miss them. Civil discussions lead to growth, mind expansion, and cooperation. Civil discourse strengthens communities because yes, diversity of thought broadens the quality of the community and those who live within it. Instead, we are seeing huge pervasive amounts of demonization, deplatforming, and dismissal and ostracization of good people with differing perspectives.
But since one of our social facts is that people living in societies live longer, and that the more the society thrives the better for he people living therein, it is a virtue to try and repair this dynamic and re-replace it with good old fashioned civil discourse, modified for today’s reality and bolstered by our virtues and vices.
In an excellent article for the American Association of Colleges and Universities, by Andrea Leskes, she describes civil discourse as follows: “Discourse that is civil means that those involved undertake a serious exchange of views; focus on the issues rather than on the individual(s) espousing them; defend their interpretations using verified information; thoughtfully listen to what others say; seek the sources of disagreements and points of common purpose; embody open-mindedness and a willingness change their minds; assume they will need to compromise and are willing to do so; treat the ideas of others with respect; avoid violence (physical, emotional, and verbal).” “While some consider politeness and good behavior as essential to civil discourse, Ahrens (2009) argues that civil discourse must accommodate offensive expression, with the latter term capturing the harshness of many public debate conflicts. Leach (2011) says that civility “is not simply or principally about manners. It doesn’t mean that spirited advocacy is to be avoided. Indeed, argumentation is a social good. Without [it] there is a tendency to dogmatism, even tyranny.” Herbst (2010, 148) suggests that “even some incivility can move a policy debate along. Creating a culture of argument, and the thick skin that goes along with it, are long-term projects that will serve democracy well.” One should not expect civil discourse to create a feeling of comfort; discord causes uneasiness, and a challenge to deeply held opinions induces pain.”
So How do we fix it? Apply the ethics and mentality of Humanism: 1. Rehumanize - the people with whom you are disagreeing are complex people with complex ideas and reasons you don’t understand, just like you. See them for the complicated people they are, and recognize that they think they are good people doing good things and making good points. 2. Humility - You, dear reader, may be wrong. No matter how right you are, your opponent is equally convinced that you are wrong and they are right. And no matter how much of an expert you are on any given subject, your opponent has a set of life experiences, and therefore a perspective, that you don’t have. No matter who you are or what you know, you have something to learn from your opponent. Embrace every argument as a chance to learn and grow, even if it is to bolster your position by broadening your knowledge of your opposition. 3. Respect - Earned while it is given, respect is a two way street which must be traveled by both parties. Neither of you are “just stupid” because neither of you know everything and both of you are complicated humans with different perspectives. So no insults, no personal attacks, and no strawman arguments allowed. 4. Self Improvement is the objective, not convincing the other side you’re wrong. Arguments are a mutual quest for growth. Combine the above two points to seek to broaden your knowledge base from the fully complex human who has a very different perspective. Whether or not one of you convinces the other isn’t the point. Both sides can win the a argument if both sides learn and grow, even if nobody changes their mind. 5. Remember that as good as they may feel, echo chambers hurt you and society by narrowing your views, increasing your likelihood to outgroup, and fostering ostracization and splintering. Echo chambers make you feel good, but it’s wrong, because your views are limited to those who agree with you. Seek to avoid them, even though it’s harder, by seeking to bring your opponent closer to you, instead of pushing them away . 6. Check your sources. We have all been fooled by fake news items which have permeated our feeds and conversations over the past few years. These fake news items, as well as the real news that is “spun,” are done so by experts to fool the masses, and it’s discouraging but not shameful to be taken in. So everyone in a discussion has the responsibility to check sources carefully, and be prepared to submit them to the opponent. 7. Compassion for your fellow human is imperative in dialogue. We must empathize with people even asn especially as they get angry with us. People get angry for reasons, and they experience and react to that anger for still other reasons, none of which you are going to know, so you should not assume bad intent, stupidity, or maliciousness at the offset, or even after a small discussion. Most people are not bad - just products of their upbringing and brain make-up - just like you. So if they aren’t bad, but just wrong, a humanistic approach would include compassion for them, especially when they are wrong, and especially when they are angry as a result of your conversation. Decreasing well-being is bad, and the objective good is to increase well-being, so when someone is experiencing negative emotions, compassion, not anger, indifference, or vindictiveness, is to be valued. Learn from their anger how impassioned they are, because, in all likelihood, they think they are right and you are espousing a wrong or harmful position. See how their anger affects them and their logic and have compassion, for emotions are strong and you may be the next to get angry. 8. Acceptance follows compassion, because they are humans as you are, and they can be wrong and not evil, like you can be. But the point of acceptance is not about winning the argument, its about learning from each other and not dehumanizing or demonizing the opponent, who offers you a different perspective, strengthening you by attacking your echo chamber, and challenging your views, and adding life to yours via social contact, and all the other positive things that human can do for you, with you.
Consider the following fictional conversation between an abortion clinic protester (male) and an incoming (female) patient: Protester: “Don’t go in there, they will kill your baby!” (This first volly takes an extreme position that abortion is murder, but does not dehumanize the patient.) Patient:” Fuck you, it’s my body and my choice!” (This first swear in in retaliation to the idea that her rights are being usurped and escalates the rhetoric. The “my body my choice” is expected by the protester.) Protester: “Fuck you baby killer! It’s not a choice, it’s a child!” (responds with the same swear a , but further escalates with dehumanization.) Patient: “ Your mother should have aborted you!” (dehumanization flies back, and forth, and back again. These two people now see each other as clearly less human than they see themselves. The protester hears that line all the time and has a response at the ready.) Protester: “My mother didn't abort me because she loved me! Aren’t you glad your mother loved you enough to keep you?” (a zinger that attacks the patient’s motherly instincts, which is easier for the protester now because the patient has allowed herself to be dehumanized.) Patient: “My mother wanted to have me. Your mother was obviously not given that choice. How does it make you feel knowing your mother had no choice?”(The patient is now trying to hurt the protester back. He attacked her rights, her autonomy, and her mother. As far as she’s concerned, yhis guy is scum and deserves it).
So at the end of this exchange, what has happened? The protester thinks the patient is a terrible person who doesn’t care about killing her baby and insulted his mother. The patient thinks the protester is a harasser and a rights usurper. Neither thinks the other deserves patience or understanding. Nobody has changed their mind, and MOST OF ALL, everything happened as they both expected!
Let’s try a different approach. This time, the same protester is attacking a Humanist who uses understanding and kindness to break down some barriers to communication. Protester: “Don’t go in there, they will kill your baby!” (This first volly takes an extreme position that abortion is murder, but does not dehumanize the patient.) Humanist Patient: “Hi! Thank you so much for caring about babies! I don’t think abortion is murder of course, because I wouldn’t murder anyone just like you wouldn’t! But I get that you are trying to do what you think is the right thing and I respect it even if I fight against you politically.” (NONE of this was expected by the protester, who has just been simultaneously validated as a nice person and rebuked politically.) Protester: “Well, yes I do care, and so should you! They kill babies in there!” (Returns to rhetoric, but because he has nothing off which to ricochet, he does not escalate.) Humanist Patient: “Well of course I care! I care just as much as you do (forcing the protester to humanize her), but the difference is I’m not religious, and you are, right? Protester: “yes, I am a Christian and God tells me abortion is murder!” (This is now a religious discussion, the protester is now deep in unexpected territory, and still there has been no escalation.) Humanist Patient: “Well, I’m not a Christian, I’m an atheist and a Humanist, and everything we as a society knows tells us is that this fetus isn’t alive yet, so it’s not at all murder as far as the rest of the world thinks. And of course I do have control over my own body like you have control over yours, and this is my decision. However, before I go in, I want to thank you for trying to do good with what information you have, and I hope you will look and see what the rest of the world believes, and consider if your religious position is the only reasonable path. Have a nice day!”
So after this exchange, the patient has not dehumanized the protester. She sees him as a complex person who has been the victim of indoctrination and is not evil, just wrong, and he thinks he’s doing good by being there. The protester is on the other hand, disarmed of his rhetoric, forced to humanize the patient more than he wants to, and sees the issue as religious, not “not caring about baby murder”.
The issue is dire, the stakes are high, and each person takes an extremely opposite view of the topic. On the issue of abortion itself, both of these people would become red-faced in anger at their points being attacked, but there were no red faces here, and most importantly, there was a clear winner. The Humanist has calmly and civilly dominated her opponent. He wasn’t expecting what he got, was unprepared to respond, and left the conversation seeing her as a more complete, reasonable person, so he has less of an excuse to dehumanize her and, as a result, is forced to see more of her side of the argument.
Civil discourse is not a code word for “coddling the enemy”. It’s not about taking the high road when they “go low”. It’s not something to be dismissed because there are more important and urgent matters on the table. Effectively utilizing your full array of weaponry is an all-important strategy.
Civil discourse is a powerful weapon to deploy strategically and consistently. It should be your weapon of choice, all the time, because it: ● Disarms your opponent, because all they have is rhetoric and they don’t know how to respond to civility. ● Deflects their attempts to dehumanize you, forcing them to deal with you as a person, not just another extremist insulting them and yelling nonsense (even if it is in response to their own extremist attack). ● Deflates their hate, so much so they might even like you (and see your side of the issue better) when you are done. This is the guaranteed opposite of the Extreme approach, which only adds fuel to their fire. ● Defeats their arguments, for real, by actually getting to the point and using your superior logic, while paving a path for them, personally, to come to your side with some degree of pride.
Civil discourse is to be used in all, especially including the most extreme circumstances. The more extreme the rhetoric, the more important subject, the more you need to take your (even extreme) position with a Humanistic approach. There is no subject too important to worry about civil discourse, because civil discourse is a weapon that is far more useful than dehumanizing and demonizing.
The people who flew the planes into the World Trade Center were not “just evil”. They thought they were doing good. Pretty much everyone does. But Civil Discourse is not about treating bad people like you would want them to treat you, it’s about understanding that dehumanizing and demonizing your enemy is not the road to changing them.
Take your politically-extreme position. Use truthful, even blunt or painful words, but attack the ideas while you Humanize your opponent, no matter how disturbing and dangerous their position, and communicate with intent to build bridges, not burn them. If your position is strong, civil discourse is your best weapon. That is why it’s a show of strength to wield it. Humanist Redemption, Mercy, and Forgiveness
[why is there a need for redemption? - perhaps now is a good time to talk about Christianity’s idea of “salvation from your sins by belief in Jesus so to be redeemed in the eyes of God”. E.g., Many religions have a transformative path by asking a god for forgiveness, requirements of doing “good works” so as to be righteous/clean again. This path is often missing in a secular society that is increasingly focused on punishment/shun/etc. Humanism say “xxx” is how you are transformed. THIS IS THE MEAT [Hmmm… feels like we need some specific and common examples to broaden what we’re talking about… not just Hiltler-level evil, but simply any outgroup? Or are you referring mostly to people who have done bad things?] [can you give a clear example of what a “bad” person needs to do to be redeemed or transformed?]
Religion is known, by its own intent and dogma, for mercy, forgiveness, and redemption. If everyone is a sinner, and everyone does bad, everyone needs redemption and can earn it, for a price.
That price can be anything from confessing sins to saying prayers to donating to the church, but whatever the cost, religion provides a firm and useful mechanism for a person who has done wrong to be forgiven and brought back into the fold: the sinner is sorry, god shows mercy, and the preacher deems the sinner “redeemed.”
The forgiveness mechanism is one of religion's most powerful tools for keeping congregants - and as we as a society have drifted away from religion, we have lost that mechanism as we have lost the god.
A healthy society needs its members to be able to repent for doing wrong and be forgiven by our society as the alternative is endless splintering, via echo tunnels, and ostracization, all of which leads to more anger, more resentment, more hate, and in the end, shorter, less happy lives.
On the other hand, It’s important to be aware that forgiveness can be abused. An example is a repeat offender who claims “they’re only human” but doesn’t invest the energy to change their behavior. You have the right to demand they complete their path to redemption before giving forgiveness again. So while we need to include forgiveness in our life, we need to keep mindful of abuse.
Forgiveness is a virtue because it is good for both you, the forgiven, and society (replacing negativity with positivity, diversity instead of echo tunnels, and lessons about forgiveness to the observers, especially the young.)
Mercy is a virtue, because grudges are easy destructive vices. We all make mistakes,, and sometimes we seek forgiveness, or at very least tolerance.
Mercy and Forgiveness allow people to earn Redemption, which allows people to come back after they have made mistakes, not to hostility, but to open arms and genuine welcome. Forgiveness Forgiveness is usually between a hurt person and the person who did the hurting. Study after study shows that forgiveness is beneficial to both parties, and the absence of forgiveness is generally harmful to both parties. Hollywood tells us that people seek forgiveness for doing wrong, and are granted it by the harmed person, sometimes begrudgingly, because the harmed person thinks it is deserved. But the secret is that forgiveness is something that strongly helps the forgiver, just as much if not more than the harmer.
Forgiveness is not forgetting the act, condoning the act, and is most definitely not an invitation to repeat or continue the behavior. Forgiveness is the release of anger and resentment around the act, and it benefits the forgiver, the forgiven, and society as a whole.
Seeking Forgiveness Although it seems obvious, one should seek forgiveness from people they’ve harmed. This is often much easier said than done because of fear of rejection (refusal by the hurt party to forgive you) or ego - nobody enjoys admitting they did wrong.
Asking for forgiveness represents the admission of imperfection, which yields a feeling of sometimes extreme vulnerability. We envision those we’ve hurt taking a screencap of our apology and posting it, claiming “Hah! He did it and he admits it!” In these days of ostracization and echo tunnels, such a posting often leads to online pig-piles which we’ve all witnessed, and some have joined, and we don’t want that to happen to us. So we fear apologizing and as a result, hesitate or avoid doing so, sometimes actually deciding that being quietly outgrouped is better than the downside risk of the pigpile.
That’s not good for you, the person you harmed, or society. We all benefit from group cohesiveness, and the person you’ve harmed is probably struggling release their anger at you because they don’t think you own what you did. Yes, it is possible to forgive someone who does not seek forgiveness, but a true-hearted apology does help the harmed person to forgive more often than not, by a large margin. Additionally, your path to redemption and welcome back into the group setting will be affected by how you handle your failure. In the end, the risk of refusal and the ego hit are small compared to the personal and humanistic benefits - you should do the right thing, even if it is hard, especially if it is hard.
When you apologize, do it as well as possible. Own your actions, their effect on the injured person, and the reasons you did what you did. Don’t make excuses, but try to thread the nuanced line between excuses and a truthful explanation of why you did what you did, in an effort to humanize yourself, which aids in forgiveness. If there is even a sliver of illegality in what you did, and you fear your admission will be used against you, say so, and be blunt (“I don’t want to put in writing what I did, for obvious legal reasons, but I own what I did and how it affected you and I apologize”).
Seeking forgiveness is a cleansing event for everyone involved, and because it helps people release their anger (at you) it’s a humanistic thing to do as it helps reduce suffering. Additionally, while the response cannot be guaranteed, it at least opens the door to communication and redemption, while allowing you to grow personally from your exposure to the damage you’ve caused and your own humanity.
We’ve all screwed up. We’ve all done things that make the world worse. Seeking forgiveness is one of the best ways, if not the only way, to counter our own damage and make things right again.
Granting Forgiveness Forgiveness involves the release of anger and other negative emotions in the harmed person, allowing them to live a life with, well, less anger and negativity. We can all see the impact of how that can affect our own psyche. If there is something in your mind that is very negative about another person for doing you wrong, then yes, it would have been great if that wrong hadn’t been done, but wouldn’t you feel better if those negative emotions weren’t there all the time, in the back of your mind, constantly chipping away at your happiness?
Now to be clear, not everyone deserves to be forgiven, and not every crime is forgivable. Forgiveness must be mindful of the extent of the crime and the intent of the harmer, and we must humanize the harmer to try to understand why they did what they did, what factors were involved, was the intent malicious, and does the harmer truly regret what happened. But we also must be mindful that it is easy to hold a grudge, just by default, and that doing so harms us, so it is to our advantage to look at our anger and actively see if there is room to release it.
Whether forgiveness is “warranted” is up to you. People and situations are complex, and the nuances involved with regard to whether forgiveness has been earned, should be conditional (does your harmer need to get help to earn your forgiveness) are up to you to decipher. However, you need to keep in mind that while someone “earning forgiveness (via act or apology) might make it easier for you to openly forgive them, keep in the back of your mind that forgiveness is for you as well, and in reality their repentance or even awareness is not necessary for you to forgive.
Forgiveness is not forgetting the act, condoning the act, and is most definitely not an invitation to repeat or continue the behavior. Forgiveness is the release of anger and resentment around the act, and it benefits the forgiver, the forgiven, and society as a whole.
The path to forgiveness centers around the humanization of each other, so you can both see the complex people you are, and that usually involves a cooperative communication, even if mediated.
This is not to say forgiveness is easy all the time, but this process will help you if you choose to take it: 1. Realize that forgiveness is for YOU, not them. Anger and hate is bad for you, lowers your life quality, and may actually increase your risk of dying younger. Own the idea that forgiveness does not mean condoning the actions or crimes and is for yourself. holding the grudge then becomes an extender of the crime against you, making the crime worse on you by your own hand. Some people hold a grudge because they know it makes the perpetrator feel more guilty (lowering their life quality as punishment), but that is an aggressive act in and of itself and is not justice if the perpetrator is genuinely remorseful. 2. Humanize your perpetrator. Why did they do what they did? Are they evil? Or did they have what they thought were good reasons or intentions? a. Separate the acts from the people who commit them. The person is not the action, and so judge the action more than the person. We have all done things we regret, but we are not those acts. We are humans. The acts are separate and have multiple explanations. b. Have they shown remorse? This is not necessary for forgiveness - you can forgive someone who is unrepentant because again this is for YOU, not them, but if they show remorse it’s likely that they didn’t have intent to harm, or that they did have intent but have learned from the experience. c. Free will may not exist. A swelling movement of scientists including Sam Harris have determined that we are indeed all slaves to our background and environment. Even the most hardened criminal may be a victim of circumstance, and that goes for all of us. This makes holding a grudge (as well as the entire penal system) moot. 3. You need not tell them you forgive their actions, because telling them would be for them, not you, but setting aside the anger at the people is almost always correct, and always is to your benefit. 4. Learn from the experience. Seek areas where you have been made stronger by it. You have survived, so maybe you’ve grown too. What can you do avoid being in this situation again? Is the other person able to understand Humanism? 5. See the anger for the useless emotion it is, given all the above, put it down, and walk away, never forgetting, never condoning, but ending the event’s negative effects on your life.It wouldn’t hurt to take some time to have a drink or a moment of reflection to celebrate the release of this anger from your life.
When Forgiveness is Questionable What if the harmer believes they have done nothing wrong, but the victim feels hurt by it? What if the victim thinks they are owed an apology, but none is forthcoming? This is happening more and more as political correctness leads some people to make the position that they have the right not to be offended, pitting them against those who treasure and use free speech as a weapon against certain ideas (eg, religion). Then what?
Assuming event in question is a judgement call (eg, not a crime, not causing actual harm) the first, most obvious answer is the civil discussion, where both (all) parties humanize each other, without demonizing, and understand where the differences are. It may be that you can find common ground, or that you just have to live with your differences. This is going to be the most likely scenario in cases of opinion and offense, such as religious blasphemy or political difference. In the end we are a diverse society and freedom of speech trumps the “right not to be offended,” so this scenario is to be prepared for, and is indeed a big piece of where civil discourse is key.
Again this is a place of nuance. It is up to you to decide what to do when you feel wronged by someone who doesn’t feel they’ve wronged you, but the important fallback is always humanize and be prepared to defend your position with knowledge, not vitriol.
Mercy “We do not train to be merciful here. Mercy is for the weak. Here, in the streets, in competition. A man confronts you, he is the enemy. An enemy deserves no mercy.” - Karate Kid II
The attitude that mercy is for the weak seems to have permeated our society, even to the point where showing mercy to one’s enemy exposes you to the crowd as someone who is soft on crime and worthy of ridicule and, in the most extreme cases, ostracization. But we need to remember that the quote above is said by the movie’s antagonists - the bad guy says it! We have, as a society adopted as a norm what was rightfully used as a signifier of bad intent and bad behavior not too long ago (see how we have changed)!
Mercy is not for the weak, and it does not condone bad behavior, and it does not invite more bad behavior. Mercy is our tool to make our society stronger and more powerful.
When we talk about mercy, we talk about people who have wronged others or ourselves, and we are not talking about letting people do what they want without punishment. We are, in this context, talking about people who have made mistakes or choices which are outside the norm of your echo tunnels. We are not talking about forgiveness, but rather those who have said the wrong thing or done something you find immoral or wrong and are either sorry or maintain they did the right thing. Maybe they did something against a friend of yours. Maybe they voted for the wrong politician.
The online community at large is quick to abandon the concept of mercy, instead choosing to dehumanize the offender to an extreme, label them with pejorative terms, and dismiss them as they pile on the insults and force the person out of the community. Individuals are quick to seek revenge, doing what they can to make the matter worse for the offender, without regard to the reasons behind whatever happened. Many rejoice in and support this behavior, which means many people are acting like the bad guy in an ‘80s movie as a default - mass dehumanization.
Piling on when someone is low, even if they are guilty, is not going to fix anything, transform anyone, or do anything positive at all. Eschewing mercy is not Humanistic. Eschewinging mercy joyfully is downright evil.
If you can read this, you’ve committed acts which others might find immoral. You’ve wronged people. You voted in a way others may find abhorrent. You have skeletons in your closet and you hope certain secrets never get out. And you didn’t do any of those things to be evil; you did it because, as a human, you have a complicated life with complicated reasons to do things that few if not no other people could possibly understand because they aren't you! And just as it would be pretty awful for one of your secrets to get out, and then for your friends and strangers who don’t understand your situation fully (or even to the smallest degree) to pounce, mercilessly, and throw you out of your circles, you must be aware of your own propensity to do that to others.
Humanists seek to transform for the better. Abandoning mercy and pouncing doesn’t transform, it reinforces society's ills. Bad things are done by good people like you, all the time, and they deserve mercy as a default. Not the kind of mercy that OK’s bad behavior, but the kind that understands that good people do bad things sometimes, for reasons only they understand (and even then only sometimes), and that the key to making things better is keeping them in the fold and helping them to come through for their society as good people, as our society comes through for them.
When a member of our community falls, perhaps offer a hand instead of a mean word. When someone says they are sorry, they probably mean it. Do not delight in the misery of others who are refused societal comfort. Humanism transforms only when applied, even when a person does a bad or otherwise disagreeable thing.
Ostracization is a vice because it literally lowers life spans, creates echo tunnels, and fosters intolerance, division, resentment, and hate on both sides. Ostracizing someone causes damage to them, you, and society as a whole and should be reserved for unrepentant criminals and dehumanizers.
We are, once again, not suggesting that people who consistently or deliberately make harmful decisions to be excused blindly - like forgiveness, we must be mindful with our mercy. But we must not be deliberately stingy with it, even though a part of our brain wants us to dehumanize and outgroup. We must observe the good of reducing suffering and improving the quality of life on earth by realizing that we all do bad or otherwise disagreeable things sometimes, and if we are caught or challenged, we don’t need judgement and ostracization, we need Humanism.
The Path to Mercy is both enlightednes and rooted in the teachings of Humanism 1. Realize that mercy is an act of kindness for someone who has done something wrong but is being unjustly punished by society (maybe for something you judge to be too small fur such a punishment), or is earnestly repentant for what they’ve done. They are hurting, and maybe receiving hate, which is bad for them, so you are showing mercy to let them know they are not alone. Being hated is bad for people, lowers life quality, and may actually increase risk of dying younger. Own the idea that giving mercy is helpful and beneficent. 2. Humanize the perpetrator. Why did they do what they did? Are they evil? Or did they have what they thought were good reasons or intentions? a. Did they mean to hurt someone? Why? b. What do you think their mental processes were at the time? What were they trying to accomplish? c. Have they shown remorse? This is not necessary for mercy- you can show someone who is unrepentant but is just getting too much grief from the community for their transgression. However, if they show remorse it’s likely that they didn’t have intent to harm, or that they have learned from the experience 3. Understand that our knowledge of how the brain works is still in its infancy and free will may not exist. While this is not comfortable to think about ourselves, there are many learned people, and indeed a swelling movement of scientists including Sam Harris, who have determined that we are indeed all slaves to our background and environment. Even the most hardened criminal may be a victim of circumstance, and that goes for all of us. This makes holding a grudge (as well as the entire penal system) moot and showing mercy an act of kindness. 4. We must therefore continue to humanize and separate the acts. The person is not the action, and so judge the action more than the person. We have all done things we regret, but we are not those acts. We are humans. The acts are separate and have multiple explanations. 5. Assembling the above, realize you are hurting someone by withholding mercy that you think is due to them. They feel the outgrouping for the potentially involuntary actions they did for complex reasons. You are hurting them, possibly because of ego, possibly pride, and maybe because you seek an old-style form of justice and punishment, by withholding mercy. 6. Realize that holding the grudge and withholding mercy makes the crime worse by your own hand. 7. Understand that mercy does not mean condoning the actions or crimes. It means you are seeing them as complex humans, not the crimes personified, and you are expressing mercy for the person, not the crime. 8. Hating the human that has been separated from the crimes is both harmful to you and the perpetrator. Some people hold a grudge because they know it makes the perpetrator feel more guilty (lowering their life quality as punishment), but that is an aggressive act in and of itself and is not justice if the perpetrator is genuinely remorseful. 9. Enjoy the good deed of showing mercy to someone who is down, and is being treated more poorly than they deserve.
Redemption Redemption is typically a word associated with religion, and is used to imply that someone who has sinned has now shown himself to be once again worthy of a respected place in the congregation. In Hollywood, redemption movies are made which may include a hardened criminal making a last minute decision to risk his life to save a child.
On-line, with echo chambers in full effect, redemption is often hard to come by. The ability for people to just disconnect from others makes redemption easy, because dehumanized ostracized people are easily replaced, so there is very little incentive for anyone to go through the process that goes against their outgrouping brain and take someone back in, even if they deserve it. Additionally, the outward, proud ostracization that accompanies the echo tunnels creates the Culture of Fear, making it incredibly scary for people who disagree with the outgrouping to voice their support for the ostracized person for fear of being outgrouped themselves. So the silent majority sits in fear of the social extremist minority and the latter rules and the former sits in fearful silence.
Not everyone deserves redemption, but if they are doing their part to show that they have changed their thinking and behavior, in an effort to be good and have cooperative communication, then yes, we as Humanists have the responsibility to help this person transform into a better version of themself. That’s why we’re here! Religion trumpets its redemption for a reason - everyone does bad sometimes, and religion provides an authoritative, easy band-aid type of solution. Religion’s redemption gives guilty people permission to feel better about themselves, even if the underlying problem remains unaddressed. We, as Humanists, need to recognize that need (and not ignore it just because it’s easy to do so), and employ a mindful, careful, non band-aid (and therefore more difficult) approach to fill the hole that religion effectively pretends to fill.
This is our virtue. This is our good. In religion, the preacher declares he is forgiven by God, but in Humanism it’s up to us. We as a community decide who is redeemed, and it is a part of our virtue system to provide eagerly a path for redemption, which can easily be traced back to our code of ethics. It’s good for everyone when mindful, earnest redemption is allowed and honored.
We all make mistakes, we all change over time, and some of us, who understand and learn from our mistakes, deserve redemption, and because withholding redemption is an act of anger or negativity, it must be recognized that redemption helps the redeemer by releasing that negativity and replacing it with a positive Humanism that transforms both parties.
Humanism is bi-directional and retroactive, because everyone, even people you may hate or who hate you, are humans and have made their decisions for complicated reasons you don’t fully understand. People are generally wrong, not evil, not stupid, and not malicious, but people who think differently, particularly on certain issues. Allow people to grow and change for the better and we all benefit.
Refusing to allow redemption without due consideration is an act of dehumanization. It’s refusing to see the whole person and consider the changes people experience over time.
The Path to Redemption When talking about redemption, Humanism has a distinct disadvantage to religion in that we don’t have leaders that can pronounce someone “redeemed”. With us, redemption is not cookie cutter, pay a tithe and say a prayer, and God forgives you, so say we all. With us, redemption must be earned, and the decision as to whether it has been earned is up to every member of our society individually. Invariably, redemption will be earned in the eyes of some but not from others.
Humanism teaches that ostracization is a negative thing to do to someone, and forgiveness is an act of both mercy and self-service. As such, we hope people take quests for redemption seriously, humanizing the culprit and seeing growth where it exists.
So what must be done to earn such redemption? Does it take a lot of effort or will a simple apology do? Will it take a few minutes or years? This is all nuanced, all individual, and all up to the society at large, but here are some steps which we think everyone should do when they’ve done someone wrong in their quest for redemption:
1) Realize you are in charge, and that your actions are yours. Barring the Free Will Argument, you are responsible for your actions, for better or worse, 2) Admit harm has been done by you, or argue civilly that it has not (if you don’t feel that you’ve done wrong, you can’t be redeemed because you don’t feel remorse). 3) Think about the motivations behind what you did and own them. Did it involve dehumanization? Pride and ego? What did you want to accomplish with your actions and why? See how your internal processes and conflicts led to your decisions and own all of them, positive and negative. 4) Some Thoughts On How Humanism Compares With Religion What’s your favorite part of religion? Is it the outdated morality (Lev. 20:13 “If a man lay with a man as he lay with a woman, he has committed an abomination and shall be stoned to death, his blood is on his own hands”)? Original sin and threats of damnation (you are born a sinner and will be punished forever in the afterlife if you don’t have enough faith in their god)?
Or is your favorite part the “good stuff” -- the positive messages like mercy, redemption, forgiveness, charity, or simply being nice to each other?
Have you ever noticed that all that “good stuff” is common to most religions? How all religions claim to be “the religion of peace” or the “source of morality”? That’s mainly because those values, caring for each other, being good, etc, are evolved into us, independent of religions, but religions try to take the credit for giving us what we already had. Religious apologists like to claim their religions are the basis for secular morality, and point to their holy books as the source. The ignore, of course, some major facts:
● Most religions make the same claim to be the single source of morality ● Morality came first; religion was created to reinforce tribal cohesiveness and morality ● All religions claim to be the only true religion yet have different dogmas and rules. ● All religions have descriptions of a reality that doesn’t match what science has proven? ● Other animals, such as bonobo chimps, dolphins, and even some birds show complex yet similar morality without religion at all.
Old Testament New Testament Koran Humanism The Golden Rule, Do not lie/steal/murder, Compassion, Charity, Love thy neighbor, Mercy, Forgiveness, Redemption (all for in-tribe only)
Non-humanism Original sin, Genocide, War, Slavery, Death for atheists/gay people Dehumanization Original sin, Eternal Damnation, Subjugation of Women, Religion > Family Slaves Obey Masters Dehumanization War and Genocide Dehumanization Eternal damnation Child marriage Spousal abuse Death for atheists & Gays
In other words, all evidence shows us that morality came first, independent of religion. Religion then retroactively took the credit, and added its own dogma to protect itself and make money and power.
We all remember how we figured out many of the “good parts” of religion when we played with other kids in elementary school. Remember how you were told “be nice to others” without also being told “because [a god] will punish you if you dont’”? That worked on your instinctual empathy, not your fear of damnation. And it worked pretty well for most of us!
Religion didn’t invent ”Good” - it just stole the credit! Agnostics, Atheists, and Humanism: Terms and Overlaps.
Chances are good that you are at the same time, agnostic, atheistic, and Humanistic, although chances are also good that you don’t know it. It’s hard, nigh impossible to create an understanding of how these concepts work together without addressing the meanings of these labels and how they individually affect our individual and collective psyches. So let’s take a moment to define our terms and see how they relate to each other. Agnosticism Agnosticism is the idea that we don’t know everything, and that many things are not knowable, particularly as it pertains to gods. An agnostic person would not claim absolute knowledge, and thereby imply some room for doubt or incorrect assumptions in their positions on religion (or anything else for that matter). This usually implies humility of thought and non extreme positions, which comes part and parcel with the assertion that they could be wrong.
Some agnostics claim that everyone is either agnostic or stubborn and they are right in a sense. Nobody knows everything and so yes it is reasonable to assert that everyone should admit that and have some humility in their positions. However, nobody can prove, with 100% certainty that anything, including the coffee cup from which they drink, is not God in disguise. We don’t know everything, so we don’t know anything for sure at all!
So then what does certain really mean? Almost certain? Does sure actually mean almost sure? Does admission of our own lack of universal knowledge imply we can never be absolutely sure about anything?
When agnostic is used in the case of religion, it is often used as an alternate word for atheism, but that is a misnomer. Agnosticism is about knowledge, not belief. The fact that we don’t know everything is independent of what we believe to be true. We don’t know everything in the universe, so we can’t say for sure that our coffee cup isn’t a cleverly disguised god, but we do believe without reservation that the cup is a cup, so we can and always do say that we believe things to be true or false, for sure, without having a full knowledge of the Universe.
So yes, we should all be aware that we don’t know everything about anything, but that doesn’t mean we can’t have solid awareness of what we know and firm positions based on that knowledge. When something happens to change our beliefs, our agnosticism and the humility that accompanies it will help to shield us from our cognitive dissonance and ideally make us more prone to adjust our ideas based on new data, but until Zeus shows himself, we can be very sure (though not 100.0% positive) he doesn’t exist, and your coffee cup is just a cup. Atheism The word atheism is formed by adding the prefix A- (“without”) to theism, which is defined “as the beliefs and practices around the belief in a deity”. Therefore atheism literally means “without a belief of practices around the belief in a deity”. It’s important to note that atheism does not imply absolute knowledge, and is not absolute denial that gods exist (though many go there), but merely the lack of a belief in a (specific) god based on what we know today.
Agnosticism is the admission that we don’t know everything, and atheism is the lack of beliefs based on what we do know (what we know we know). If you have no belief in a specific god but consider yourself “on the fence” and are aware of your lack of Universal knowledge, you’re an atheist and an agnostic. Your “firmness” in your atheism is not relevant, because it’s not about how sure you are, it’s about whether you believe, actively, in a specific deity. If you don’t have a specific belief in a deity, you’re an atheist, and if you’re open to the idea that a deity may be out there somewhere, because we don’t know everything, but have no reason to believe in him right now, you’re an agnostic atheist. Where Humanism Fits in (Overlaps) Humanism is not a religion, it’s a secular (meaning “not religious”, as opposed to “anti-religious”) philosophy, which includes a secular morality based on what we know. As such, Humanism, like Confucianism, golf, or any other secular idea, is independent from religion or religious belief. Humanism also makes no claim to knowledge, rather it works off what we know, as opposed to claiming to know or not know everything. So, much like Agnosticism and Atheism are on different scales that overlap, Humanism is on a third scale which overlaps with the first two.
This means you can be any combination of atheist, agnostic, and Humanist (vs. social extremist) and still be logically consistent.
On Anti-Humanists a.k.a. Social Extremists We can and do all break the some of the ideals of Humanism sometimes, and that doesn’t make us all “bad”, but it’s certainly not humanistic when we do that. So we need a word for those who routinely act without regard for the ideals we espouse (Practically-objective Good), whether the people are associated or aware of Humanism or not.
So what would we call someone who dehumanizes en masse, ostracizes eagerly and permanently, is apathetic to environmental or societal issues that arise from living in echo chambers, or routinely champions those who engage in this behavior (or shuns those who do not)?
We call them “Social Extremists”, because they take an extreme position which is anti-Humanistic by default and definition.
Please note that we are not talking about extremism in political opinion, but rather behavior toward other people. One can (and we think, should) be an extremist in such issues as bodily autonomy, separation of church and state, and other political issues which pertain to our morality. That’s good, productive, political extremism. This is about social extremism - how we treat other people, how we treat those who disagree, and the extreme vs. humanistic way we handle dissent and disagreement (though very often both types of extremism go hand in hand).
This isn't about bad people (we try not to dehumanize), it’s about people being so extreme that they can’t see the humanity of others or the effect that extreme behavior has on the rest of society. Humanists try to transform the social extremists into better people by showing them a better way, for themselves and society, based on the realities of today. If people act in direct defiance of what is obviously good, they are being bad. And if they are bad unapologetically and consistently, nay proudly, they are blinded by their own extremism, and need our help to become better people.
Humanists follow a morality to make the world better than today, which includes humanization, redemption, forgiveness, a true respect for cultural diversity (which leads people to different opinions, which we are all free to judge vs. the Practically-objective Good) and idealistic differences. Social Extremists do not follow that morality and indeed embrace the opposite of these ideals (dehumanization, ostracization, and echo chambers), so therefore the opposite of a Humanist is a Social Extremist.
Social Extremism is dividing, splintering, and substantially weakening democracy and our society. Ostracization, shunning, and purity tests are the norm, and all of that is at least in part due to rampant dehumanizing. This behavior and attitude also stops social extremists from caring about, listening to, or forgiving their adversaries (or even their friends) because they prefer their echo chambers of those who agree perfectly. Social extremists come in all places and all political and demographic persuasions; they are everywhere.
And here’s the hard part. Social extremists will treat Humanists far worse that Humanists treat them. They will shun us as we try to keep them in our lives. They will push us away, dehumanize and dismiss us. They will demonize us as the enemy even though we both have the same goals - a better Earth - because we have different experiences from them. Social extremists dehumanize en masse, and we will be shoved into a place of disrespect when we try to engage.
We engage anyway, because we’ve all been extreme at one point or another (because it’s partially innate). Extremists become Humanists all the time, and with the right communication and compassion, and a whole lot of humanizing and understanding, we can influence people who don’t think they want to be influenced, and improve who don’t think they need improvement. We can broaden minds by engaging and embracing, even as they shun and shy away.
Social Extremists are everywhere, but they can change.Through humanizing and Humanism, they can be transformed into better people, improving society and strengthening our community. That’s what makes Humanism activism.
That’s why we are here: for the extremists, and the extremist in all of us. Because extremists are complex humans who need to be understood and informed, not demonized and dismissed. The latter would be an socially extreme thing to do.
Harsh words, especially when they are said to yourself. And we’ve all said them to ourselves at one point or another. We’ve all degraded ourselves, thought less of ourselves, because of actions we have taken which hurt others or ourselves which we shouldn’t have done. We should have known better. We should have seen what we were doing or saying was wrong. We should have been better.
The bad news is we can’t change the past. The good news is that we can be better because we can learn why we did what we did and, through mindfulness, we can prevent it from happening again to the same degree.
Our propensity for dehumanization is wired unto us. As we mention HERE, it’s evolved into us over time as a defense mechanism, because it aids us in outgrouping, which was valuable in tribal times, but today serves to allow us to be cruel, objectifying and downright unempathetic people. In short, our evolved propensity to dehumanize makes us behave like assholes.
But we have guilt and shame thrown in as well, and these emotions play a heavy role in how we see ourselves. If we hurt someone we feel bad, but only after we see them as human. In other words, the fact that we feel guilt for hurting someone because we dehumanized them is evidence for the fact that we are rehumanizing our victims, which is a good first step to learning from the process. So in this very important way, guilt is good.
It’s not a platitude for us to say congratulations for feeling guilty - because guilt is really just an admission to yourself that you did bad, which is the first step to realizing that we all have a dehumanization problem. Hence the analogy to Original Sin.
So you feel terrible. The next question is what do you do with those feelings. For most of us, we go straight to the beginning words of this section. You tell yourself you’re worthless, you’re shit, you’re an asshole. You are hard on yourself because you’ve done wrong, and good people don’t want to do wrong. Very often, we are our own worst critics. We start seeing ourselves as inferior - we self-dehumanize.
When we self-dehumanize we are more likely to be hard on ourselves, and in a very real way, internalize our own self-imposed sub-human status. Unfortunately, this often results in us more easily dehumanizing other people, because we consider it normal for us, which leads to more guilt and shame, which leads us down a spiral of increasingly bad (by our own definition) behavior. We become more and more of an asshole, even as we wish we were nicer, which makes us self-dehumanize even more.
This down spiral can quickly take over our psyche, making us take for granted that we are indeed less than good, less than worthy of love, and less than human. We unwittingly, unwillingly, and unintentionally become bad people in our own minds as well as society’s.
It’s a problem similar to addiction, because of the cycle of doing something you can’t seem to stop doing, hating yourself for it, and then doing it again because you give up on giving up. However, in a very real way it’s worse than addition, because your dehumanization of others leads them to feel animosity toward you, which triggers their dehumanism mechanism, which will make them dehumanize you, so they treat you badly and when confronted with their behavior, feel bad about it, and dehumanize themselves as you dehumanize them back in revenge for treating you badly.
That’s why dehumanization is contagious - a “Dehumanization Cycle” that is crippling our community, all based on guilt for doing something instinctual.
This cycle of dehumanization can be stopped with.mindfulness, awareness, and kindness to yourself and others and we have a process to help.
We begin by looking at how Humanists treat our adversaries: we humanize them. We see them for the complex people they are and realize that they are mostly good people who have complicated reasons for doing what they do, including dehumanizing you. We understand that dehumanization propensities exist for everyone and that given certain situations those tendencies will guide their behavior heavily.
Like they affect us.
Now think about how you’d treat your best friend if they’d done what you did and was as remorseful as you are. You’d console them. Assure them. Show them you see past the muck in their brains that sometimes makes them dehumanize and treat other people badly. You would tell them you know they are a good person, with good intentions, who like everyone sometimes loses themself in their innate tendencies and learned behavior.
Now let’s look at how you treat yourself. Stupid, worthless, less than human. These thoughts of guilt and shame have a use, but it is to trigger our learning about ourselves and our society, not to paralyze us and make our lives worse. Guilt and shame can be good if put to good use, but causing us to dehumanize ourselves and in turn be freer to dehumanize others out of our own lack of self worth isn’t it.
We are often our own harshest critics. Harsher than our enemies treat us, harsher than we treat our enemies and friends, and it’s all based on guilt and shame on actions and brain processes that are at very least partially involuntary.
Our guilt isn’t about telling us we are bad - if we were bad we wouldn’t feel guilt. Our guilt tells us we are good because we want to be good and failed in this instance.
We need to treat ourselves as good people who want to be good and sometimes fail due to the fact that we are hard-wired to dehumanize and trained by society and internalize the guilt from dehumanizing. We need to treat ourselves with compassion and kindness and understanding, not to give ourselves a pass on bad behavior, but to look at our bad behavior and allow ourselves to learn from it without devaluing ourselves. In other words, we need to treat ourselves at least as well as we treat our friends.
Good people and bad people both do bad things. The difference is that good people don’t want to, or feel guilt and shame for doing wrong. Good people are often hard on themselves where an asshole won’t care, or may even celebrate their destructiveness. The fact that you’ve read this whole article should tell you that you are, in fact, good, and you can learn from your guilt and shame without letting it paralyze you, allowing you to make yourself better and the world better off for having you.
That would be a nice thing to say to your best friend.
The Process of Improving Your Life and the World via Humanization. Recognize that You dehumanize people; most everyone does. As we have explained, this is a natural and instinctive tendency that helped prehistoric humans band together to fight for resources. Today, dehumanization takes on many different forms, including everything from racism and sexism to hating every Republican or Democrat.
Dehumanization is harmful to everyone, including you. By dehumanizing,you limit your view of the world by discounting pieces of it, while encouraging others to do the same to you (Dehumanization Cycle). By reducing dehumanizing behavior, you improve the world by improving information exchange and reducing ignorance and hate.
Dehumanization is innate and wired in, but you must realize you are in control. The fact that you can rehumanize someone once, deliberately, means you can do it all the time. You just have to train your mind to do it reflexively. This is a great example where you can learn a new mind skill and change reality. You have the power to do this.
Think about times you’ve dehumanized, been dehumanized, and dehumanized yourself in the past. There’s probably a lot you can think about! Think about those situations and try to see a pattern. Do you often feel dehumanized at work? Maybe you dehumanize people to whom you’re attracted, or friends who voted the wrong way? Maybe you beat yourself up over mistakes and errors in judgement? Look for times you normally dehumanize people, and note what triggers it.
Once again, don’t judge yourself for dehumanizing behavior. Just note when you do it, what triggers it, and how you feel when you are dehumanized.
Having seen patterns, watch yourself for dehumanization when those patterns are ripe to play out again. Listen carefully for instances of dehumanization from other people
When you realize you are dehumanizing or have dehumanized someone, take a moment to actively humanize them. Think about who they are, what their life story must be like for them to be where they are, why they chose the clothes they are wearing or the things they are saying. Just realize that they are as complex as you, just different.
When you dehumanize yourself,pretend you are your best friend, and treat yourself as they would treat you. Would they call you stupid, or would they take your side, even if you messed up bad, and help you to understand why you did what you did so you don’t do it again? Guilt is your informer, not your prison guard. Let it make you better without caging you in.
When someone dehumanizes you, resist the urge to dehumanize them back and immediately try to humanize them. Don’t judge them for dehumanizing you because it’s at least partially involuntary. Then, humanize yourself to them. Tell them a short elevator speech on who you are and why you differ from them. Help them to see you as you see them.
When you see someone else dehumanizing someone, including themself, don’t judge them, but consider making them aware (without making a scene). Tell them privately after the fact if necessary send them this link to help them become more aware of the issue.
Finally, try to live a humanizing lifestyle: ● Find friends who humanize ● Use reminders (eg., wear specific jewelry), to remind you to Humanize ● Remember that this is a never ending, always improving process, but the goal is to humanize everyone, and to surround yourself in a humanistic environment. Humanism And Suicide Physician Assisted suicide is supported by Humanism. People own themselves, and that means you have the right to terminate your own life in horrible circumstances.
The problem is that some circumstances are less dire. There is a spectrum of despair, and when it’s a matter of non-physical issues, non terminal illnesses, or any other issue that is non permanent, suicide is an option we hope you will take off the table, because taking your own life in that case does not lead to a reduction of suffering, but rather it eliminates your ability to do good for yourself and others in the future.
We see life through our own filters. Everything we observe, we categorize. When it comes to humans, we instinctively dehumanize. When we see situations, we reflexively judge them, and depending on our state of mind, all this can change. Sometimes, when we are facing what we perceive as repercussions of our actions, we self-dehumanize, seeing ourselves as less than the complex people we are. We see ourselves as failures, not victims. We look in the mirror and see someone less than human, less than valid, less than forgivable.
Suicide is not a price to be paid, or an escape from life’s hardest moments.
We are all complex, and time does indeed heal wounds. As much pain as we might be in at any given time, there will be times when the pain is less, and in those times we will all have the ability to do good for the world, compensate for our faults and failures in our own minds, and live a life that is still very worth living.
If you are low and contemplating suicide, please remember that you can still do a lot of good for yourself and society and the ones you love in the future. You will have the ability to recover and you will be able to heal. You may have faced permanent changes in your life, and indeed your life may never be the same, but that doesn’t make you evil or bad or useless. You are complicated, and so is the world, and living in today’s society is difficult.
Also, please remember that you are seeing the world through an emotional filter and that means you are not seeing the world objectively (ever). Even if the world seems dark and the future bleak, that is only your observation through your filter given your current emotional state. It’s probably better than you think, so take some time, lots of it, to see the future pan out and brighten over the next few weeks or months. Take time, recover, allow your brain to mourn, and heal. Healing beats death, and you deserve to heal.
If someone you know seems to be suicidal, please reach out to them. Do not wait for them to reach out to you and don’t tell them to reach out if they feel bad. Take the initiative and reach out.
Resources: ● National Suicide Prevention Lifeline : 1-800-273-8255 or text “HOME” to the Crisis Text Line at 741741. ● The Secular Therapy Project - remote and confidential secular therapists https://www.seculartherapy.org/ ● Helping other in distress - Interventions https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-desk-the-mental-health-lawyer/201806/rising-suicide-rates-and-needed-mental-health ● Discussing Suicide (Psychology Today)https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/brainstorm/201806/how-have-more-responsible-conversation-about-suicide ● What to do when you think someone is suicidal https://medium.com/@deanna/why-you-are-loved-and-please-reach-out-are-the-crappiest-things-to-post-after-someone-has-died-484eb23d6715 The Pledge I pledge to make Humanism a part of my personal growth, To recognize that dehumanizing is both natural and negative, and to strive to humanize those with whom I disagree. To be a vehicle for humanization and a roadblock to dehumanization. I pledge to be guided by the principals and virtues of Humanism, directed by mindfulness To improve myself and society for the betterment of all, including future generations. I pledge to become the person my future me wants me to be, To be humble enough to actually want to hear and learn from others with whom I disagree, And in the process, I pledge to make humanization my moral companion as I travel this life leaving behind a legacy of a better world.
Bigotry, discrimination and racism all contribute undeniably to the suffering in this world. And so we get angry. And so we fight. And they fight back, and we get angrier and fight back harder... in our effort to make people suffer less and enjoy life more.
That effort is Humanism in action. We see injustice for other people, we care, so we fight for them because we want to do good, and we want to strive for better. Good stuff.
But anger has its limits, or at least it should. Some Social Justice Warriors, angry at the people who do bad things, dehumanize and demonize the other side, looking at the bigots of the world (often quickly labeling people with minimal evidence), or even the people who are just in the system trying to make a living or do good (police, politicians, etc) as simply evil. What these people don’t realize is that while hating an outgroup is natural, it also leads to echo tunnels, intolerance, and a life of negativity.
One of the easiest ways to get angry at someone is to dehumanize them by assigning a brand of bigot, racist, Islamophobe and then attack them without compassion.
Transformative Justice tasks us to understand the people with whom we are disagreeing. We humanize our adversaries in an effort to better understand them and ourselves, and that leads us to a less hostile society and frankly, better lives for all. As Humanists, we seek to understand the point of view, background, and complexities of even our most hostile enemies. What makes them think that way? Are they evil, or just really misinformed? Is it possible that they really believe their god wants them to be a bigot? Is it possible to be afraid of people of color because of their upbringing? Does that make their behavior OK?
No, but it also means they are not evil, even as we see them do evil with glee.
This is often hard to stomach, because we innately want to outgroup. We instinctively dehumanize and indeed crave the tribal nature of despising the other side. But the hard news is that we shouldn’t do it, because those instincts hurt us and our society.
Nobody is “just another cop”, “Just another Christian”, or “Just another Trump Supporter.” Everyone was born into a situation, raised in a situation, and has made decisions based on all those situations. For the most part, people don’t do bad things to be bad, they do things which are bad in a misguided effort to be good.
And so life gets more complicated for the Humanist. We need to try to see complexity under the face of simplicity. We seek to understand with compassion. We feel bad for the people who do bad, and we want to help them change. We seek to grow ourselves by allowing difference while fighting behavior that goes against what we see as good (which again is based on the Practically-objective morality), but in doing so we fight our own inner warrior, who seeks to rage against the enemy forever.
But raging against the enemy forever also increases suffering - in us. Rage and grudges and echo tunnels all lower our quality of life, even though they are all instinctual. So we must understand, and that means we must allow for growth in our enemies as we hope to grow ourselves, and that means we have to allow people with whom we disagree to continue to stay in our society so we can forever learn from their perspective as they learn from ours, always trying to influence for good, knowing that by ostracizing them we allow them to create their own echo tunnels which will prevent them from changing their minds.
Some might object to this idea, clinging to the notion that one should not force themselves to be associated with “one of them” because life is too short to be exposed to that. We say it’s too short not to, because society thrives better when people help other people learn to do better. Indeed, it is activism, a virtue, to keep people in your life that need a positive influence in theirs. If you ostracize, you protect their problems - eliminating the possibility of changing or at least better informing their opinion - while hiding yourself from challenges to your preconceived notions.
A beautiful thing happens, sometimes, when we employ Humanist ideals to conflict situations: minds change, people become better people, and when that happens, forgiveness flows.
Forgiveness is so difficult sometimes, because we dehumanize the opponent and therefore categorize them as someone unworthy of forgiveness. That makes people hard to forgive, because in order to forgive, we feel like we admit we were wrong to have such a negative opinion of them in the first place. However, when people are seen as complex, they are more easily seen as valid and changeable, they are more easily forgiven because we who are angry no longer have to admit we were wrong to hate them, because we never did.
Take, for example, you are not a Trump supporter but your Uncle is and you’re having Thanksgiving dinner. You might be tempted to look at Uncle with disdain because he voted to elect a self-avowed “pussy grabber”, which you understandably find a detestable, dead-stop deal breaker. After all, there is no way we could ever have a relationship with someone who supports such behavior. Right?
A Humanist would look at their uncle as a more complex person. Does he really support assaulting women? Is he really a racist? Maybe, but maybe not. Maybe he just has different priorities because he is barely scraping by and Trump promised to bring back jobs. Is that evil? Is that someone to dismiss forever? If we see Uncle Trump Supporter as a complex person, we give ourselves a path to understand him, and keep him in our lives, providing less anger for us, The Uncle, in turn, would be able to see our compassion and empathy and providing a path for him to be open to understanding your position. In the meantime, we become more informed by listening to him, hearing his challenges and not dismissing them, learning what the opposition is saying without anger or dismissal, but rather with compassion and a quest to better ourselves by broadening our knowledge base.
It’s humanistic to want to right wrongs for other people, to have empathy for them, and to fight for the rights and equality of the downtrodden. It’s instinctual to outgroup and dehumanize those that oppose us. But if we are to create a better world for us and our fellow humans, we must fight the urge to hate haters, humanize our enemies and take the far more productive and difficult approach to understanding conflict resolution.
The principles of Social justice are good and important, and we need to see and acknowledge that for the most part, social justice issues are humanist issues. Racism is real, rampant in American society, and rules our justice system to a ridiculous degree. Additionally, members of the LGBTQ community regularly face oppression, bigotry, and threats of violence just for being queer. Laws are being passed which allow discrimination against gay people often under the guise of “freedom of religion”.[suggest less religion as SJW tend not to be religious[ Indeed, nationwide and worldwide, religion is being used as a battering ram for bigotry, masking hate with “love” and using the idea of god to protect prejudice.
Fight the Good Fight, but remember Humanism doesn’t stop with intent to do good. Get better results with better activism by humanizing your adversaries and allowing redemption and forgiving wrongs based on different perspectives.
Humanists are Activists As with every movement, Humanism starts with people. Whether you believe a god is watching or not, people run the show, and it is our job to use our wonderful brains and resources to further the cause of good.
Humanists, in general, seek to be and do good for the sake of good. Humanists understand that if good is actually good, then we must do what we can to make the world better, and so we seek to transform society for good. For us, activism is a virtue, and apathy is a vice.
We are not just good for goodness’ sake, we are good for the sake of the well-being of all conscious creatures, especially humans, now and in the future. This is very important to humanism, because it shows we realize that sitting idly by is a negative and harmful thing to do, because permitting evil is helping it. Much like a silent atheist activist is benefitting religion, so is a silent Humanist hurting humanity.
This does not imply we all have to become activists, or evangelists for Humanism, but it does imply that we want to help, and will try to help improve the world whenever we can. The important parts here are the intent and the action, not the scope or intensity of the action itself. Ralph Waldo Emerson (allegedly) said “to know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived this is to have succeeded,” and this creed in in perfect alignment with our ethics. It is not just about being good, it’s about being good because being good reduces suffering and increases well being and helps the world, even to the smallest degree. Doing good transforms society. And naturally, because we humanize each other, it’s completely antithetical for one Humanist to criticize or judge another because they’ve taken a different, stronger, or weaker path to helping the world. We are not here to judge each other the the paths we take, because we practice what we preach inside and outside our community. So Humanists have the attitude, drive, and intent to improve the world, but the way we do it, and the extent to which we do it, is individual, because we are all complex and have different priorities.
The Ethical Mandate for Civil Discourse Yes, it’s a far better strategy to use civil discourse in even the most hotly contested subjects. Yes, it’s more effective in multiple ways, disarming your opponent and surprising them with logical reasoning instead of the vitriol they are spewing and in turn expecting. Yes, civil discussion can be ruthless and allows you to dismantle flawed arguments more easily.
Because civil discussions are so much more effective than vitriol, a note has to be made about the ethics of civility.
In today’s political environment, the separation of church and state is under siege, abortion rights are being reduced regularly, and racism and bigotry are being bolstered and becoming more and more of the norm. In short, we are being besieged by attacks on multiple fronts by forces which are clearly anti-humanistic, and those who defend those positions only make their points with vitriol and “alternative truth” (indicating the weakness of their positions).
In short, it’s a time of extreme attacks on the civil right of all people, is causing an increase in suffering on a large scale. It makes some of us want to scream, panic, and attack, because we are good people who want to do good. But that kind of response makes things worse.
The ethical position is to take seriously the fact that vitriol doesn’t beat vitriol, it only creates stalemates (and in such situations, the status quo wins). It feels better in the moment and allows us to vent our anger, but it wastes an opportunity to attack a real problem that affects other lives.
When the stakes are this high, we cannot waste time fighting with kindergarten tactics. We must fight for the rights of others to reduce suffering using the best methods available, even if they rob us of our instinctual gratification we get from yelling, dehumanizing, and venting. We will get much more satisfaction from defeating the argument and converting the supporters. We will get a much better high by keeping calm and defeating those who push for bad policy for the wrong reasons. But most importantly, we will efficiently use every opportunity to help people who need it by defending their rights with the most effective methods possible.
Extreme times don’t call for extreme measures. They call for thoughtful, intelligent, and intentional methods which solve the problem.
As Humanists who seek to do good, we have the social responsibility to use these best methods to defend ourselves, our rights, and our neighbors. We are responsible for not doing what gives us the short term dopamine hit of zingers and instead choosing the greater good by choosing the greater weapon to defeat the many attacks we are facing: the civil discussion. Environmentalism And Humanism
Doing good means more than doing good for today, and reducing suffering means more than reducing suffering for only those currently alive. From an environmental perspective, this creates a quandry: How much do we weigh the future societal benefit vs the costs to today’s living humans?
Take, for example, energy. Today, the average person consumes twice as much energy as in 1950. As the world population continues to grow, so will our need for energy. However, energy is not clean, and despite the recent advances in nuclear, wind, and solar technologies, the vast majority of power is generated by burning fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas) that pollute the environment, adding carbon to the atmosphere and causing global warming with possibly catastrophic impact of the quality of life for people in future generations.
But to cut off that power because of the potential (likely) future impact on the planet would yield an immediate and definite effect on the billions of people who cannot access energy today. We cannot tell a family they can’t ethically use electricity from a coal plant nearby to heat their home and feed their children, but, because of that energy’s production, tomorrow’s families will breathe dirtier, possibly damaging air.
Another example is wildlife and habitat loss. Did you know that the global populations of vertebrates -- mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish -- have declined by 58 percent between 1970 and 2012 due to habitat loss and need to grow food for humans? We are on trend to see all large wild mammals to go extinct in the next couple of centuries. This is due to actions that we are doing today. Humanist need to be the champion for the lives of people (and animals) of the future as well as today.
Humanists transform, and when we are talking about the environment and the future, we seek to transform to the benefit of billions of lives, for both today and tomorrow. As such, we have adopted an Ecomodernist approach to environmentalism:
“The ethical and pragmatic path toward a just and sustainable global energy economy requires that human beings transition as rapidly as possible to energy sources that are cheap, clean, dense, and abundant. Such a path will require sustained public support for the development and deployment of clean energy technologies, both within nations and between them, through international collaboration and competition, and within a broader framework for global modernization and development.”
Humans typically have a high discount rate for future events (e.g., 5% drop in value per year of money... so $1 in 2068 is worth 7.6 cents today)... so with that 5% discount rate, the value of $1 each year to infinity is $18.5 (power series). But... 5% is just for money... we can't say that the life of one person born in 2154 is not worth the same as today UNLESS we factor in the probability that humans can survive until then (probably 90% chance per decade)... so it means if we raise the planet temp,say, 6C, which will cut corn/wheat yields by at least 31% (probably more as yield drops 6-7% per C but not linearly ... https://phys.org/news/2017-08-climate-crop-yields.html ... will affect countries like Pakistan first Capitalism and Humanism The old adage says ‘the business of business is business”, but if “corporations are people”, can’t a business be a Humanist? Can’t a business grow, thrive and care about it’s fellow, um, person?
Capitalism can be a force for evil. Some say “Nothing has been more damaging to the earth than capitalism” because unbridled and unguided, capitalism places (mainly short term) return to the stockholders above all else, and that means more pollution, lower wages, and less ethical behavior in exchange for a higher stock price and higher wages for top executives. All this is because some erroneously believe that capitalism inherently revolves around the idea that the stockholders are the sole beneficiaries of the enterprise, and that the enterprise's sole purpose is to make money for those stockholders.
“Conscious Capitalism” is a term created by John Mackey (of Whole Foods fame) which describes Humanist businesses which recognize that all stakeholders, including employees, customers, and neighborhood, must thrive for the business to thrive. The idea is that the capitalism is not bad, but rather that the idea that the business’ sole purpose is to make money for the stockholders (as opposed to the stakeholders) is the problem. If the company has a purpose beyond the Almighty Dollar, not only will the business thrive, but it it likely to thrive better and last longer than those constantly worried about the short term financial gains.
The old American Ideal is that working hard yields a good living. That would imply that every business that works hard thrives as well. But the Social Facts say that luck is involved in the success and failure of every person, and in this case every business as well. That awareness should rightfully yield humility and gratitude in the leadership just as it inspires the same emotions in individuals.
A company with a conscious approach is humble and gracious and cares about the society in which it thrives. It cares about the workers, the customers, and the entire ecosystem beyond its walls. Businesses allow the Humanists who run them to transform society to a greater degree than individuals, which makes them and their company potentially powerful forces for good.
Mindfulness and the “Original Sin” of Dehumanization We talk a lot about how we should behave with each other, and we playfully use the phrase “Original Sin” to discuss dehumanization, because like the religious version of the idea, all humans have the propensity to dehumanize, and its safe to say that everyone in the world does this. Dehumanization is “original”, because it’s the root cause or a major contributing factor in most of our prejudice, bigotry, misogyny, xenophobia, and hatred. We need to take a moment to discuss the idea of mindfulness and how we can use it to defeat our own propensity to dehumanize.
Mindfulness is the idea of simply “being present”, neither thinking of another time nor place. It’s being fully aware of what is happening in the now, and observing. Mindfulness meditation is a secular practice that has many positive effects on the human mind, including simply being aware of what the mind is doing. The art, or skill, of mindful meditation involves being in a comfortable position in a quiet place, and trying to be “in the now” for the longest time possible, without drifting off. It’s a near impossibility; the mind goes places eventually, whether it be in a second or a minute, few people can stay in the present for any stretch of time.
When meditating, when thoughts wander, the practice is to simply notice them, not judge them, and return back to the present again. There is no discouragement or unhappiness when thoughts wander, because it is essentially involuntary, though it becomes more voluntary with practice. The point is to learn from noting what the thoughts are, to find out what’s on your mind, and how much it’s on your mind, so you can deal with it in a cognitive and productive way.
Humanists view dehumanization in the same way. Like random thoughts through your head, dehumanization is a natural event that is involuntary to a significant degree. It happens to all of us, because it’s evolved in, and we know it’s dividing our country and our world, because that’s what it’s supposed to do.
The difference is that dehumanization is destructive all the time, not just bothersome or worrisome. So we have to deal with the fact that we have this issue which stands in the way of our progress as good people and good Humanists.
Mindfulness comes into play when we are speaking with (or about) another person with whom we disagree. We must pay careful attention to our own brains to watch for the dehumanization process to kick in. ● Are we seeing them as members of a category? ● Are we stereotyping their intelligence or morality based on one or two details? ● Would we care less about them than we would someone who thought more like we do?
If so, we are dehumanizing. So now what?
Unlike meditation’s random thoughts that we don’t judge, we do judge dehumanization - we just don’t judge ourselves for doing it. We aren’t bad for doing it, but its a bad thing to do. It’s destructive and it weakens our ability to defeat our opponent in exchange for the momentary hit of making ourselves feel greater than them.
Dehumanization must be met with resolve and rehumanization, but not shame or guilt. Train your brain over time, like meditation, to humanize everyone, but be aware that this is a never ending retraining process for your brain, and do not be discouraged when you find yourself doing it. Judge the thought, not the mind, and fight hard against your own brain to humanize everyone who is human. Hate the sin, but feel no shame for committing it. Just try your best to stop, all the time. How to Talk: A Guide to Good Communications Now is a time of oddness. People speak, for the first time, over increasingly less and less rich media, moving away from face to face or telephone conversation to texting , comments, or tweets. What was once discussion has become sound byte. What was once debate has become zingers. What was once detailed nuanced explanation has become tl;dr.
The result, beyond the obvious increase in dehumanization, is a new cycle of miscommunication, fueled by inadequate statements (from inadequate media), leading to echo chambers and more dehumanization, leading to impatience and intolerance, followed by assumptions of intent, and circling back to more inadequate statements. Then, when we finally do sit down face to face, we are ill prepared, over confident, and unable to make what may be very valid or important points.
This is a new phenomenon - our society is literally becoming worse at communication at the very time when we need to improve! Our poor communication is crippling us in so many ways, and on so many levels, that it’s hurting our society on a big picture level.
But there is good news: It’s happening relatively uniformly politically, and more radically for the social extremists, who have a huge head start in the area of dehumanization. That is good news because it gives us an opportunity to use effective communications when the other side does not. As stated before, civil discourse is a weapon, and it’s super powerful against an unarmed or poorly armed opponent.
A Humanist who is skilled in effective communication can beat extremists and help to transform their country and society by taking advantage of the glaring weak spot now shared by most of the community.
Why do we communicate? Communication has a purpose, but many people have lost touch with it. If you watch TV these days, you’ll see the zeitgeist of communication is centered around quick hits, zingers, and sound bytes. In other words, communication has become a competition. It’s almost never seen as what it is - a tool for learning and persuading - rather it’s become a verbal dual to be used mainly as entertainment for the echo chambers of both sides. Neither side actually listens to the other, or themselves, because there is nothing to listen to, because nothing important is actually being said. It’s all surface level insults, superficial (typically extreme) statements, and vague generalizations. As a result, nobody is listening, because nobody is actually communicating.
So why do it? So far, communication as described above has had the purpose of reinforcing preconceived notions and legitimizing the dehumanization of the other side. Outscore the opponent. Get in more zingers, call them more names. Get cheers from those who agree with you.
That’s not what communication is for. That’s kid stuff, and it has to be recognized as such.
Your opponents in a debate will use the kid stuff as their main weapon. You have civil discourse in your quiver, and that means you have the power to win for real.
The primary purpose of communication is to convince your opponent and/or observers of your viewpoint. It’s not about zingers or insults, because neither of those convince anyone. If you are going to spend time communicating, you should do it with this goal in mind. Not to shout down or make fun, but to defeat the opponent’s argument with your own.
Defeating a bad argument with a good one using civil discourse and the Socratic Method is relatively easy, if and only if your knowledge is sophisticated, nuanced, and complete. This isn't going to happen if you get all your information from Twitter and Internet memes. Details are mandatory. If you’re going to argue politics, you better know more than one side, and you’d better have a solid knowledge of what you’re arguing. Nothing beats the confidence of having a thorough knowledge of the subject matter. Which brings us to the Secondary Purpose of communicating: Learning. Learning must be on your mind when you communicate, because it makes communicating more valuable to you in the short (immediate) term. Communicating with learning in mind will bring two major possibilities to the forefront: 1. Humility - You may be wrong, if not on the whole topic at least on some small sub point. Seek out learning opportunities and use them to your advantage. Having humility about your own educated and informed point of view makes you stronger, because it recognises that you may not have every point down, you may be wrong, and if you are wrong, about even the smallest point, you must concede the point and not dig in your heels. Remember the topic is not you. You can be wrong about some portion of the topic and by learning about it you become stronger. And since people are driven by their life experiences you are likely to be exposed to a position based on a life experience with which you are unfamiliar. This exposure will enhance your argument in the future and make you stronger in your position. You are not here to win the fight, you are here to persuade and learn. Humility is also a great tool for humanization purposes. If you see your opponent as a complex human with experiences that are different from yours, from whom you could actually learn something, you will be able to stop the conversation from devolving as they dehumanize you, appearing stronger to the observers and running circles around your opponent. 2. Weaponry - More often than not, a well learned civil discussion against a Social extremist will not teach you all that much. If you’re an expert on the topic it may be hard for you to learn anything for your argument from someone whose source is Twitter and Facebook. But there is still much to learn here a. The person’s experience and reasoning, or lack thereof, needs to be understood so it can be exposed and used otherwise to your advantage. If you can quickly identify that you are debating with a logically under-armed opponent, you can use that to your advantage b. If your opponent makes new and interesting arguments which are still flawed, learn from them and be prepared to have arguments against them for future debates. The most flawed arguments can be, at very worst, target practice. At best, you can learn a new angle on a flawed argument that will arm you against that same flaw if you see it again. c. Learning that your opponent is ill equipped against your knowledge allows you to obliterate them, showing their opinion is flawed and uninformed for all to see. It’s a level of activism and personal satisfaction you can’t obtain without civil discourse. Once you realize that you have your opponent outgunned, well, that’s your signal to calmly, kindly, and rationally, fire your verbal weapons with intent to destroy the argument. As mentioned earlier, ideas are not people, so you will not lower yourself to insults or personal attacks, but to show everyone in the room that you’re right because you know more is worth more than a thousand zingers.
Once you have internalized the purpose and utility of the conversation, and you have amply prepared yourself with details to back up your opinion far beyond the level of Internet memes and quick soundbites, you are ready to engage in civil discourse, with intent to change minds and learn new attack angles and opponent weaknesses.
Civility will allow you to be at the same time nice, compassionate, ruthless, and victorious. [I’d suggest this to emphasize online discussions… how can these be used when you are just making a post comment?] Important first steps The following issues require constant revisiting throughout the conversation: 1) The topic must be clear. This means you must both agree on what your differences are and where your disagreement lies. It also means neither you nor your opponent should be allowed to change the subject without at least acknowledging it verbally and then, of course, restarting with the new topic clarification. 2) Body language - so important! If you’re having a face-to-face discussion, your body should be relaxed and calm, with no aggressive posturing. Aggressive posturing can legitimize your opponents aggression in their eyes as well as the eyes of the observers. 3) Define your terms. Watch for words with multiple meanings which can be used to trip up your psyche. Trick words are used often in Internet memes so your opponent will likely use them and not realize they are trying to trick you - it’s just the basis of their knowledge. For example, can an atheist be spiritual? If spiritual implies “believing in spirits”, then no, but if it means “having awe in the Universe,” well, that’s a different story. So when someone uses the word spiritual or any word which may have multiple definitions, ask for clarification, agree on the definition of the word, and move forward to the question.
The system for winning arguments is cyclical and methodical: 1) Understand the opponent’s position, and why the opponent takes that position. Ask probing questions in a calm manner to get to the core of the issue, and try to legitimately understand why they take that position. 2) Openly detach yourself from the ownership of your own position. You can keep strong opinions about important issues without those issues being a part of you. Being overtly open to being proven wrong will make the opponent feel like you are convincible, and may make them less likely to attack without civility, instead seeking to convince you with logic and reason, which will require them to think clearly about their own reasoning. This will make them overconfident and lower their defenses, without causing you to lose an inch of ground. 3) Use equalizing words and phrases to make it clear that you are both humans deserving of humanization and are both on the side of doing good. Great examples of such phrases include “Look, we are both good people striving to do good” and “we come from very different perspectives, tell me yours and I’ll tell you mine”. This will dramatically disarm your opponent even more, as they will be forced to humanize you to at least some degree before they answer. It’s so important to realize that the social extremists who are coming at you with vitriol will not be prepared for civil discourse. They will be prepared to face anger and hatred and you will instead provide civility, not because they deserve civility, but because they don’t deserve the courtesy of giving them a slowball vitriolic response which requires nothing in response by way of substance or reasoning. Vitriol is what they expect, what they want, and what they’re prepared to respond to. Don’t give them that courtesy; make it seem like you’re being courteous while you are being ruthlessly civil.
4) Use the Socratic method to ask questions over and over again, to get to the root of the issue: a) Ask them Why do they think this way? b) Repeat their answer to them c) Ask them if their logic would sound valid to them if it came from you i) If they say yes, then call them on their bluff, and either use the same logic and ask if it convinced them, or pick a dehumanized third party to use it, and unite with the opponent against that third party against whom you can both agree. ii) If they say no, tell them they’re right, it shouldn’t, and then circle around to ask again, why they take their position d) Be prepared for them to turn your logic around on you, and have solid answers to why you believe what you believe, with answers to why that logic would work for you. The social extremist inexperienced in conversation will try to turn your logic on you, but not be prepared for you to have all your answers ready. If they do try to engage with you on your level, they will have fallen into your trap, and be faced with a logical argument from which they are ill prepared to escape. e) If they get angry at falling into your trap, stay calm and pull them back in. Do not make derogatory remarks or take a victory lap as they get frustrated, but rather have compassion for them, for legitimately, they are victims of their circumstance (as are we all) and only well formed logic and objective reality can transcend indoctrination, and that’s hard on a person. So If they get frustrated, calm them, be almost parental, and tell them again with equalizing statements that they are a good person like you just seeking to make the world better, and fighting all the things we’ve all been taught by wrong people. f) Practice legitimate humility. You could indeed be wrong, and being overconfident shows weakness. Be literally open to change on even your most stringent positions (including our basic principles) and show it. If your position is right, it does not need the protection of your ego, and if it is wrong, you should indeed change it. g) Use questions and equalization statements to get to the root of the issue. In many cases the root will be something like “this is how I was raised, and I think everyone should be like me”, where “like me” really translates to “follow my religious laws” or “follow my family traditions”. From there, a simple turn around (“well, this is how I was raised, differently from you, so am I right to demand everyone should live as I do?”) reveals their hypocrisy to all involved. They will of course say no, which allows you to segway to issues of fairness and good: h) How do we determine what is good and fair? (Humanism offers good, salient answers) i) How do we govern a diverse population with strong but differing views in a fair manner (Separation of church and state, equal representation, balance of powers) j) How do good people like us who disagree as we do come to a compromise on how to live (bodily autonomy, “you own you”, freedom of speech with civil discourse).
The result of this civil discourse is humanization without vitriol and yeah, you win all the arguments against otherwise unarmed extremists who came to a gun fight with the butter knife of name calling and dehumanization. You came armed with the nuclear weapons of reason, compassion, humility, and good sound knowledge backing your firmly held positions.