That's Not "Conversation"

I sometimes feel guilty about walking away from people who are spouting hatred and other insanity without challenging them. I know nothing I say is going to persuade them away from their hate, but I wonder if not saying anything is surrendering the point.

Maybe it's not.

bspencer at Lawyers, Guns and Money gets to the heart of it:

To be clear, when people whine that they “just want to have a conversation,” what  they are–all too often– really saying is “I want to say horrible things about a group of people and not be challenged or pay any sort of price for doing so.” Well, I’m sorry, but conversation doesn’t work that way. If you say something disgusting–even if you do so under the veil of question-begging or dog whistling–people might then be prompted to say something back. And you may not like what they have to say.

Hey, I know you “just want to have a conversation about race.” That’s great. I want to have a conversation about how Rush Limbaugh fucks underage prostitutes while hopped up on Oxycontin and Monster energy drink. But if I do so, I can expect blowback.

Hey, I know you just want to just want to have a conversation about how buttsex makes Jesus cry impotent tears of rage. I want to discuss how I suspect that most gun-humpers are only slightly more emotionally stable than Buffalo Bill. But if I do so, I can expect blowback. Oh, who am I kidding? I’m talking about gun fetishists; I can probably expect death threats or worse.

But my point stands: Using “conversation” as a cover for your bigotry is not just obnoxiously disingenuous, it’s cowardly.