Davis is a brilliant man that understands something about humans that far too many people don’t. He came to that understanding by engaging and asking questions.

This strategy single handedly abolished more KKK members than anything else. Contrast to the extremists of today like BLM who are having the opposite effect and pushing more people to racism. We’re going backwards. Then again, it’s not like BLM is actually motivated by their clever branding, so this is unsurprising.

> This strategy single handedly abolished more KKK members than anything else.

Obviously this is not true.

OP's claim is quite bold and they did not offer evidence. I would describe it as 'unsubstantiated'.

To correctly say it is untrue, you must show another strategy actually converted at least hundreds of KKK members (perhaps more, as it's possible people beyond just Daryl got results from this strategy).

That's a nice story and I'm sure he's a great guy but it's not an effective policy at the macro scale and that's what matters.

You seem pretty confident, why do you think it would not work at macro scale? If you are saying that empathy doesn’t scale, that’s a pretty dark view that requires some evidence.

Are people born racist? Does education an outreach not work? I really don’t see why you’d be so certain.

Daryl's approach works, at least for him. I suspect others can learn to do it, too.

I have seen no evidence whatsoever that refusing to interact with people deradicalizes them. The filter bubble phenomenon suggests the opposite.

I'll take a strategy that's known to work with unclear scalability over a scalable one with no evidence it works, every time.

I don't really care so much about the individual voter, I care about how far their voice reaches on the Internet, I care about the people they influence, I care about their children, I care about higher-level things.

I don't understand how that relates to what I said.

Would you mind explaining further?

What do you think is a more effective way to deradicalize white nationalists as measured on a societal level: engaging them on the merits of their arguments and having a good-faith debate, or deplatforming them?

I missed your response days ago, but happened to see it just now scrolling through my comment history.

It seems obvious to me that deplatforming them will further radicalize them. It fits perfectly into their narrative as I understand it.

Engaging them as (deeply flawed, very wrong) humans and having a good-faith debate seems to have worked shockingly well for Daryl. I suspect it could for others, too (though Daryl is obviously a rare breed).

building personal relationships with individuals in order to deradicalize them one by one is not a viable strategy at the macro level. It's efficacy is irrelevant to me.

How is it not viable? If every person who went to a BLM protest also made friends with one police officer, don't you think that might be extremely effective?

Haha, obviously not?

Begging the question is not going to convince people you're right.

I'm not really begging the question, because I'm not trying to convince anyone that a general policy of individual empathetic outreach isn't effective at a macro scale. For one thing, it's self-evident, and I'm not really interested in "debating" anyone who would challenge that. For another thing, it's a tangent from the main point of the thread.

When has it ever been tried at the macro scale?