This is a great thread idea, Branwell, it's been nice this past hour to recherché my changing views over the past 30-or-so years and take stock in them.
I had a highly resonant conversation with an activist friend some five years ago. It went like this:
Me: "How many times a month do people point out that something that you've said or done is racist?"
Them: "Oh, like once a week?"
This friend's engagement with activism, and commitment to allyship, has left them more susceptible to be on the receiving end of correctives. They had to work to allow their views to be malleable, and divorce their "hurt feelings" from necessary criticisms and corrective engagement. I think about this a lot!
As for "when my mind has changed", I have many instances where my mind has changed in a way that some would consider to be anti-progressive; that is, I have only become further entrenched in my (basically) pragmatic views, that conflict can be resolved with resolution (not revolution), that equity can be achieved with discussion and amendment (not violence), that bad takes can be best addressed with engagement (not public humiliation). These attitudes, at times, run counter to certain accepted progressivist views.
Here are some instances where my mind has been changed in ways that would be, I suppose, deemed "progressive", that spring to mind, in reverse chronological order:
1. I was recently informed of the non-viability of the word "savages" and no longer use it or its variants
2. It was recently proposed to me that the best way to resolve TERF/trans conflict is the normalization of, and education of, penises as being "normal" on women. I've never felt anything weird about "a woman's penis" personally; the "eureka" was really that other people should be invited to have the same attitude, rather than allowing any concessions whatsoever toward obsolete and incorrect essentialism
3. Several years ago, but rather late in life, I was informed as to the motivation behind Imperialist escalation of conflict in oil-rich nations, and why a country such as USA would profit from escalating (or initiating) such conflict
4. When I was in my 20s, I had an apathetic attitude toward Indigenous people in Canada and their struggles. Because I was in close proximity to so many New Canadians, many of whom had immigrated (or their parents had immigrated) to Canada to escape situations of extreme conflict, I did not understand why Indigenous people did not share a New Canadian's pragmatic attitude toward existing and thriving in this country, and its colonialist structures. My attitude has changed to a point where I find my previous apathy to be execrable and shameful
5. I would retrospectively describe my politics as a teenager as being "extremely socially left" but being essentially economically conservative. In my 20s I became aware that "economic conservatism" is effectively a method of maintaining the same power imbalances that oppress people socially
6. As recently as five years ago, I had a fundamentally reformist attitude toward the police in North America-- I believed that the police force could be reformed with disarmament, and diversification of their activities (don't send a cop to deal with somebody who is suicidal, i.e.). I now have a hardline abolitionist attitude toward the police, and see no use for their continued existence, on the whole
Here are some instances where my mind has become further convinced of views that would be, in certain circumstances, considered "non-progressive", that spring to mind:
1. I maintain that the left is divided by semantics and hubris, and that the functional differences between, say, in Canada, the Liberal party and the NDP, while not superficial, are surmountable, and that the most effective amendments to critical social and economic issues will be achieved by unity of these factions-- essentially, the progressive vote is divided and this should not be the case
2. I maintain that conflict between most factions on the left can be simplified to disagreements between "abolitionism" and "reform", and that the sooner we can agree upon which is the most effective stance to take on any given issue, the faster we'll achieve change
3. I maintain my aforementioned attitude that pragmatism is the most effective path toward achieving equity; this, despite the fact that "the pragmatic left" has become somewhat of an insult in certain avenues of contemporary discourse
4. I maintain that pacifism and non-violent response are necessary at all times; in the face of people who would provide me with impassioned (and convincing) discourse otherwise, I remain resolutely pacifistic, and committed to resolution instead of escalation
5. I maintain that any healthy society is grounded on an amicable and symbiotic relationship with one's government, and do not agree with any "smash the state" rhetoric; I believe that the state should be in service of the marginalized and under-privileged, and dismantling the state in the name of "revolution" only endangers the people who the state should be protecting
6. I do not share any idea that we will ever achieve an equitable society, and believe that society will constantly be in a state of upheaval; finding ways of making this change continuous and constructive is of critical importance
7. I continue to believe that The Enemy should be engaged with in conversation, not in battle
― flamboyant goon tie included, Tuesday, 27 October 2020 14:50 (three years ago) link
This is a subject I think about a *lot*, since I am someone who has done the ideological 180 in life, and it weirds me out to consider how it might not have happened if x, y, and z conditions hadn't been met. To be fair, when I was religious and conservative, I was still a literal child, and ignorant of so many things in the world. But I did have a real, self-consistent (or so it seemed to me at the time) worldview, so I wasn't simply parroting what I was told. I like to think this gives me an advantage when arguing with the brain-wormed, but sadly it doesn't really.
Along with virtually everyone else in this thread, my change of mind was more of a slow burn than a sudden enlightenment. I do think a key factor was being a teenager during the start of the war on terror. It became very clear then that the GOP's claims to be pro-liberty and gov't accountability were a crock of shit. Seeing the racism and xenophobia on the right go from latent to blatant at the time was also an eye-opener.
What is particularly interesting to me is this: while my beliefs about the problems of the world and how to solve them have shifted drastically leftward since then, my core *values* (influenced a huge deal by Christianity, though I do not consider myself a Christian any longer) don't seem to have changed much at all. They just express themselves differently.
Being an adult now with a modicum of self-awareness, I can observe the process of my mind changing to an extent. For example, I've come around from being a skeptic of police abolition to a supporter, but it wasn't any one particular person or argument that "made me" change my mind. However, the groundwork was already set because I was I already against police brutality and for accountability measures. If I was a gung-ho Blue Lives guy that change would probably not have been possible.
I think the most important factor is having a sense of epistemic humility. Like Branwell said upthread, simply knowing and accepting that you only hold a small piece of the puzzle is crucial. It often seems to me that most people in the world do not practice this, and they might not even know how, and that makes me feel very pessimistic about the future.
― american primitive stylophone (zchyrs), Tuesday, 27 October 2020 14:57 (three years ago) link