“You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.” My parents used to say this to me frequently, especially my father. I’ve always been one to get passionate about topics I consider essential, and I’m not convinced that greys and moderation are appropriate in all areas. Some things deserve a robust response. ^[i]

I wonder how often they used that honey and vinegar phrase with my brothers. But I digress.

We don’t like it when people speak truth to power, or even truth to neighbour. We prefer instead the soft sell, the “gently-gently,” the “let’s all be reasonable” approach. This is all well and good if both sides of the equation are reasonable people dealing with a reasonable division of opinion – Pepsi or Coke.

What if they’re not?

What if they’re not reasonable people? What if their position is untenable? We like to say that doing bad things doesn’t make someone a bad person.

Why not?

Non-judgmental

We don’t like to make judgments and draw hard lines in the sand. We always look for the excuse, for the exculpating factor.

Sure, Karen is a raging bigot, but she had a really traumatic experience at summer camp once.

Making excuses and looking for mitigating factors is appropriate with children: they’re learning, and when one is learning, mistakes are made. We hold space for explanation, revision, improvement, and growth for our kids.

But children grow up. They get driver’s licenses. They register to vote. They get jobs and travel on their own. They get coupled up, and sometimes they have kids themselves. We’re not doing a good job of holding fully grown adults accountable for their behaviour, especially when it comes to the discriminatory, antisocial kind.

I’m sure Pierre didn’t mean to suggest Indigenous people are lazy when he said they need to learn the value of hard work.

We’re shockingly moderate in our responses to the indefensible. We gave unforgivable ugliness grace because “everyone has the right to an opinion,” and now we’re reaping the consequences of our servility: we’re swimming in bullies, conspiracy theories, white supremacists, and bigots who think their opinions are valid.

Even the AI proofreader thinks we should be gentle: Explore ways to connect with those who hold opposing views, aiming to build bridges rather than fueling animosity. Encouraging respectful dialogue and mutual understanding, even with strong disagreement, can be more impactful in promoting positive change.

Everyone has the right to an opinion, but not all opinions are equal. Some opinions are wrong. Some opinions are revolting. Perhaps now would be a good time to stop being all “The Emperor’s New Clothes” about reality.  

SOGI 123

SOGI 123 is a field of education philosophy that has been added to the mission statements and classroom planning for schools in British Columbia. The goal is to make schools safer and more inclusive. The horror.

“SOGI” stands for “sexual orientation and gender identity.” The changes are about ensuring that classroom language, texts, examples, and discussions include a wide variety of people. It’s about learning to be tolerant and accepting of differences in other people. So, of course, fundamentalists are enraged.

I’m reminded of the parental rage that showed up when non-whites started appearing in school texts as examples and illustrations in the seventies.

Fundamentalists have worked themselves up into frothing frenzies, convinced public schools are trying to turn all children into drag performers following obligatory castrations for the boys. The majority of kids should be so fabulous.

The Christian fundamentalists in my community have always demonstrated extreme hatred and intolerance towards people in the 2SLGBTQIA community, and their Christlike hatred here has them forging cross-religion alliances of nastiness – nothing says “God is love” like Sikhs and Christians on a hate march together.  

The obvious solution – home school to teach your kids intolerance – is not one they’re fond of. Instead, they want the schools to set up the curriculums according to their preferences and beliefs. They scream about indoctrination without a shred of irony.

The “parental rights” movement is little more than a dog-whistle to bigotry.

Interventions

I was on my way to misery and happiness today via the bookstore when I saw one of their hate parades slithering by. What to do, but shift gears. What to do but park the car, get out, and march forward to engage in some lively counter-protest.

Though I’m not sure “counter-protest” is the correct term. That smacks of information-provision, or counter-programming, and that’s a different kettle of fish. I’m not much interested in persuasion. My specialty is judgmental criticism. My counter-protest consists of calling them out for hate crimes and bigotry.

I’ve wrestled with the philosophical conundrum of behaving in a bigoted fashion towards bigots, but in the end, I decided the premise was flawed. All that evil requires for triumph is for good people to do nothing. I agree with Edmund Burke there.

But the police were frustrated with me because I introduced an element of protesting chaos into what had been an orderly hate march. And I think that’s okay. I’m tired of the silence. I’m tired of people not doing anything beyond social media complaining. I’m tired of watching hate crime numbers rise. People parading in hate should worry about societal pushback.

A non-binary child was murdered in Oklahoma for existing.

I’m not the idiot whisperer

The police officers were polite. And no matter their opinion on the content, the police can’t stop people from speaking freely. Unless you mention Palestinian rights, but I digress.

Unfortunately for the marchers, those rights exist for me too.  

But one officer said to me, as a half-question, “You know you won’t change their minds, right?”

You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

It’s not always about changing their minds. There are better angels than me out there working on racism, homophobia, bigotry, and misogyny. I’m amazed by their grace, their willingness to dialogue, and the way they believe in finding the good.

I’m amazed by their patience.

So no, I’m not going to educate. I’m not going to chat about opinions or points of view. I’m done playing nice with horrible. But we need to get back to natural consequences. Speak your ugly, bigoted, misogynistic, racist opinions if you must. But people embracing that kind of ugliness should worry about the blowback, and they don’t, because they think that “everyone has the right to free speech” gives them a behavioural pass.

This is not, by any stretch, the non-violent communication style championed by Marshall Rosenberg by any means. That’s about expressing needs with clarity, listening to others with compassion and empathy, and “facilitating mutually beneficial outcomes for all involved.” That style will probably go a long way to engendering positive change, and the AI approves. My behaviour is judgment on steroids with a complete lack of interest in their feelings. I think there’s space for both.

Nasty people doing nasty things should feel the sting of condemnation. They should get their feeling hurt. They should feel uncomfortable preaching hatred and bigotry from their bully pulpits. The changes likely won’t come from that, but that’s not the point. Ugly should hide behind masks and robes. That they feel emboldened to march openly in hate means we’ve failed.

---

[i] Of course, when women get passionate about a topic, “hysterical” is often the charge levied. “You need to calm down.” Why?

---