S/o when should you “know better”

[af1212]

There could be some @@ stuff that pops up in here!

So everyone agrees that when Harry dressed in a nazi costume he was old enough to know better, but I’m curious when people think that point comes (not specific to the costume - in general).

When are you old enough to “know better” in spite of your family background and/or education?

Genuinely just curious to see what people’s thoughts are.

[Bad Dingo]

For dressing in a nazi costume? Anyone unless they are a baby and someone else dressed them. If you are capable of purchasing/crafting a nazi costume then you are obviously doing research into who the nazis were.  The same goes for blackface.

[af1212]

Mar 9, 2021 17:49:30 GMT -5 Bad Dingo said:

For dressing in a nazi costume? Anyone unless they are a baby and someone else dressed them. If you are capable of purchasing/crafting a nazi costume then you are obviously doing research into who the nazis were.

Not specific to the costume. Lots of people are raised with racist, sexist, and otherwise hurtful and wrong behaviors and ways of thinking. I’m wondering when the onus for that stops being on your parents and you start being old enough to know better.

[waverly]

I would say college is a good place to learn more about history, racism, other cultures etc. But not everyone goes to college, so hopefully 18/19/20.

[Deleted]

I find that this board is much more unforgiving of these kinds of transgressions than the general public.

Harry wore a red arm band with a swastika on it. It was not good. He was, however, not dressed up in full Nazi party regalia, sporting a little black mustache, a floppy black hair cut, and goose stepping through the party. He was an idiot. I am a Jew and I speak only for myself when I say I accept whatever contrition he felt and responsibility he takes for his actions since then.

I think that by age 20 you know better but I don’t think you automatically “do better” at that age. Twenty years old may seem like an adult, but just barely. You deserve to be called out at any age for racist, xenophobic, sexist behavior. I don’t think all such actions mean the person deserves wholesale condemnation in perpetuity.

[Deleted]

Also dressing up as Nazis seems to be popular with Brits. Paul Hollywood (Great British Baking Show) dressed up as such in full uniform in 2017.

BBC— www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-41218525

[rosiebear]

High school age, I think.

But then again, you have idiots like the ML poster whose name I forgot who saw nothing wrong with a white woman wearing a full on feather headdress, so maybe I’m naive.

[StrawberryBlondie]

This is something that I think changes depending on how you were brought up. Like when it came out that Trudeau did that brownface thing for an Alladin costume and people thought that because of his upbringing with his dad being prime minister he especially should know better... I kind of think that's a reason why he would do such a thing without a second thought. Like, you grow up in high society around exclusively other high society white people, that bubble is going to keep you from learning a lot of stuff you should've learned years earlier. Whether that's purposeful or not, I'm not sure, but I can totally see a rich aristocrat who has spent his entire life with other rich aristocrats being completely ignorant about things that seem common sense.

I'm probably articulating this badly.

With that said, I think mid-twenties you probably should know/do better no matter your upbringing.

[aprilsails]

I’m also going to say by the end of college 21/22 age. I cringe hard at some of the shenanigans and costumes that I thought were good ideas during university. Nothing racist, anti-Semitic or damaging to anyone but myself, but just downright terrible and odd. I once got to the club, bf helping me out of my jacket. He screamed and put it back on me and asked where my shirt was because I apparently had just worn a bra to the club. Yeah, I had put on one of those stupid knot your scarf into a shirt outfits and the pin that was holding it all together fell off in the cab somehow and was long gone. So... after 21.

I think Harry made an incredibly poor decision, but I have seen my young peers make similar poor decisions and not have it play out on the world stage and they have certainly lived their lives as better people than they appeared to be at that time. I would say on balance Harry has done the same as well. People are obviously going to feel differently, and that has more to do with his meaning as a symbol, than with his actual life as a person.

[darthnbjenni]

In today's world? Definitely high school to early college. I make exceptions for people I've met that have been fundie homeschooled and are just now breaking away and joining society. I suppose the real difference is that they are just now learning what is and isn't socially acceptable (or right vs. wrong), since they've been sheltered and/or indoctrinated their whole life. This is actually pretty common here in SC.

But growing up back in the 1990s before unfettered access to information? I feel like I said some dumb shit, and didn't realize how offensive it was because of how prevalent it was. I 100% know I used to use the R word and call things "so gay" when I was a teen. On the flip side, my own tween children gasped when they heard someone use the R word in public. Progress.

[sent]

I think college, provided you go to a school with decent diversity across races and socioeconomic groups. If you don't go to college, then when you join the workforce you should have a rude awakening that the racist ideals the adults around you clung to were wrong. My college was mildly diverse. It was very exhausting during college to be the first brown person a lot of the white kids met and to explain what it's like to grow up with super strict parents who were immigrants.

Or not. I'd say there are lots of people who don't want to learn and just further embrace as adults the views they were raised with as kids.

People like Harry and Justin Trudeau faced no real consequences for their poor costume choices. They didn't get thrown out of their elite families, one went on to become the leader of Canada and the other continued hanging out with the rich and famous. Basically they don't lose their jobs and their lives don't really chance besides a few minutes of bad press. So I think people can choose to stay ignorant and stay within their elitist racist bubbles until societal pressures force the bubble to burst, which could take hundreds of years as history has shown.

[goldengirlz]

I think this is a loaded question. For example, how many times have we discussed how Black boys are viewed as “young men” while white boys are “just boys being boys?” Isn’t the underlying point of those discussions about how the standards are different for the Prince Harrys (and Brock Turners) of the world vs. the Trayvon Martins?

I take issue with this whole notion of “well, Golden, you said you can’t get past the idea that he wore Nazi insignia to a costume party. But he was ONLY 20 ... at what age would you be willing to overlook that?”

Even the answers to this question will be deeply rooted in our biases about who deserves a pass.

[basilosaurus]

@i know in my early 20s I said some really insensitive things about infertility to my cousin when she was finally pregnant after years of trying. I was repeating what my Gramma had said, and she wasn't intentionally insensitive.

I think some things are so prevalent but rarely corrected, so I expect much later, like when you finally are exposed to what's right by someone willing to share and correct. Others are nazis are bad which you should know young. Blackface is probably somewhere in between because we grew up singing minstrel songs without learning the history. I don't even remember when I learned about it. Maybe college in my american music class? I never did it, nor did anyone I know. It just never was mentioned in my childhood. But I have a different standard for kids these days with widespread access to information.

[heygrey]

I think a lot depends if a person ever leaves their family/education background.

I can only speak for myself - I grew up conservative evangelical and my university experience was in a religious school. I went from one like-minded experience to another. When I got married (young, because evangelical!), I was searching for wedding stuff and found The Knot, which lead to The Nest. I lurked on CEP, but initially rejected nearly everything. Because I was always slightly a rebel deep inside, I stuck around to hate read, but through the influence of intelligent women here, I have done a 180 on nearly everything I previously believed. (So thanks CEP of 12 years ago, you changed at least one person.)

I have several acquaintances from my childhood who never left our bubble. They still believe really toxic white centric, male centric, cis centric ideals because they've never heard anything else. And I really mean it when I say never. Their parents said it, it was reinforced by extended family, teachers, friends, church, media. At some point it becomes a self selecting bias of people they surround themselves with. They reject anyone/thing who says differently.

I don't know if they "know better", like deeply understand why things are hurtful. I do think they are accountable. In a world of global media, they should come across at least one thing that gives them pause. If they go ahead with it, its because they do not care who they hurt. Or they are intentionally trying to hurt.

[goldengirlz]

Reflecting on this some more, the other reason I think this is a loaded question is because I don’t think there IS a definitive time when you suddenly “know better,” like it’s a door you walk through. The answer will be different for everyone, and it’s a process.

Now, I could point you to a legal answer or a religious one (depending on your religion). But IMO, it’s not the most compelling question.

Most people are complicated. Yes, people can grow and change, but more often people are a series of contradictions. Their good and bad actions often don’t fit a linear pattern of “before” and “after.”

Due to our family history, my siblings and I have talked A LOT about where the line is between victim and oppressor — or how to parse out our feelings about someone who underwent a significant trauma (like, say, the Holocaust) but channels their anger into abusing a loved one. Granted, that’s a more nuanced discussion than just “when is too old to wear blackface?” @@because, hell, my 10 year old already knows right from wrong in that regard.@@

But it gets more to the heart of what you’re asking which is, How do we decide which narrative is the “right” one? I think we can acknowledge the context of why someone might have acted in a certain way without feeling like we need to dismiss the pain it might have caused. Because like I said above, there’s a certain level of privilege in our society about who’s allowed the luxury of “youthful indiscretion.”

[1yeartogo]

@@@i mean my kids school district is right now in the process of changing a racist mascot/name which has always been awful. But there was ton of back and forth and families who fought hard to keep it or “just change the image not the name.” They will both be changed but the final decision of the new name/image is still in committee.

I mean it is 2021, but a lot of people (with children) still don’t “know better.” Clearly for many change not only takes time but a public calling out for why what they do/allow is wrong and a demand to do better.

[basilosaurus]

Mar 10, 2021 2:13:30 GMT -5 goldengirlz said:

Reflecting on this some more, the other reason I think this is a loaded question is because I don’t think there IS a definitive time when you suddenly “know better,” like it’s a door you walk through. The answer will be different for everyone, and it’s a process.

That's what I was trying to get at. Spectrum both in learning and in what you're learning about. Some things everyone should know regardless of background. Some things are more nuanced and take repeated exposure to those outside your bubble which may never happen. Some things should be taught in schools but are sadly overlooked.

As for college, that was my first exposure to people who openly used the n word, who threw rocks at the lambda float, who said things like "I met a Jew once." I came from one of the largest gay communities in the country and one of the largest Jewish communities in the world, so although that wasn't my personal background, it astonished me that really intelligent people at a secular very well respected university could be like that. FFS, I walked to class one morning and there were dozens of fetus pictures on signs stuck in the grass. There was a creationism club, even though the science and medical research are world class. I have no doubt there were blackface pictures from some frat party.

So, I can't say that even university with exposure to others should be some sort of line. It's possible to stay inside a bubble your entire life. Your schools, churches, media, it's so easy to isolate.

[twilightmv]

I think we need more nuance around criticize vs condemn as well. We can criticize the behavior (which hopefully leads to reflection on their part) but not condemn someone for life for it if they have since made a change in their life.

[msmerymac]

Mar 9, 2021 18:55:00 GMT -5 @mrsajl said:

Also dressing up as Nazis seems to be popular with Brits. Paul Hollywood (Great British Baking Show) dressed up as such in full uniform in 2017.

BBC— www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-41218525

Okay, but I knew there was a reason I didn't like Paul Hollywood.

[lilac05]

Mar 10, 2021 8:24:29 GMT -5 twilightmv said:

I think we need more nuance around criticize vs condemn as well. We can criticize the behavior (which hopefully leads to reflection on their part) but not condemn someone for life for it if they have since made a change in their life.

I agree, but I also think even this is nuanced. I don’t expect people who have been hurt by the words, actions, or policies of that behavior to move on and be ready to accept that someone has changed. However, I do think it falls on people like me, privileged in most ways, to at least be open to the possibility that one’s past actions do not always reflect their current character.

[pugz]

Mar 9, 2021 23:50:15 GMT -5 heygrey said:

I think a lot depends if a person ever leaves their family/education background.

I can only speak for myself - I grew up conservative evangelical and my university experience was in a religious school. I went from one like-minded experience to another. When I got married (young, because evangelical!), I was searching for wedding stuff and found The Knot, which lead to The Nest. I lurked on CEP, but initially rejected nearly everything. Because I was always slightly a rebel deep inside, I stuck around to hate read, but through the influence of intelligent women here, I have done a 180 on nearly everything I previously believed. (So thanks CEP of 12 years ago, you changed at least one person.)

I have several acquaintances from my childhood who never left our bubble. They still believe really toxic white centric, male centric, cis centric ideals because they've never heard anything else. And I really mean it when I say never. Their parents said it, it was reinforced by extended family, teachers, friends, church, media. At some point it becomes a self selecting bias of people they surround themselves with. They reject anyone/thing who says differently.

I don't know if they "know better", like deeply understand why things are hurtful. I do think they are accountable. In a world of global media, they should come across at least one thing that gives them pause. If they go ahead with it, its because they do not care who they hurt. Or they are intentionally trying to hurt.

This is basically my experience as well, although I started on MM and eventually came to CEP. Truly message boards changed my worldview and helped me exit evangelicalism. That and grad school (social work).

[seeyalater52]

Mar 10, 2021 9:59:49 GMT -5 lilac05 said:

Mar 10, 2021 8:24:29 GMT -5 twilightmv said:

I think we need more nuance around criticize vs condemn as well. We can criticize the behavior (which hopefully leads to reflection on their part) but not condemn someone for life for it if they have since made a change in their life.

I agree, but I also think even this is nuanced. I don’t expect people who have been hurt by the words, actions, or policies of that behavior to move on and be ready to accept that someone has changed. However, I do think it falls on people like me, privileged in most ways, to at least be open to the possibility that one’s past actions do not always reflect their current character.

Both the quoted are sort of a jumping off point for me to say what I wanted to say on this. I agree with both sentiments, but again there is just SO much nuance. 

For most of the things that warrant criticism, I think it's absolutely fine to criticize and point out the wrong at any age where the choice is being made by the individual as opposed to another party (@@and if it was made by another party, such as a parent, direct your criticism toward that person.) Depending on what the behavior or issue is, if they're old enough to use google they're generally old enough to have the expectation of some awareness to do a cursory sweep for anything massive that might come up. 

But that aside, I can't think of a single reason why anyone of any age should be shielded from some level of critique if their behavior is inappropriate. Consider mitigating circumstances, sure. But this idea that someone is too young to have to be responsible for the consequences of their actions when those consequences are only as harsh as being corrected, maybe lightly disciplined, and taught about the correct behavior (or whatever) is still to me. To be clear I do not mean that we should lock them up and throw away the key, but exempting a whole category of people from even the barest form of critique because they are sheltered or young or couldn't possibly know any better is absurd to me. If we don't provide critique and correction people will not grow and learn. And if they are not taught to accept that critique and correction gracefully they will turn into adults who do offensive things and then flounce when they are called out on it - regardless of how gently. When I'm interacting with someone and providing a perspective on the harmful impact of their behavior, I am more interested in how they handle and respond to that perspective than I am about the original indiscretion. I literally just want people to learn and commit to doing better. When it becomes a pattern you start to lose credibility and good will and that seems fair to me. If someone is taking the time to help you do better and you're blowing it off or getting mean that is a waste of everyone's time. 

I agree STRONGLY that the people hurt by a particular action or behavior should be free to throw that person in the trash in perpetuity if they would like. I'm not sure that I agree entirely that people who are more privileged should be quick to re-evaluate and embrace people who have perpetuated those harms. I'll use chik-fil-a as an example because it's easy, although it's probably more straightforward than most situations would be. IT BUGS THE SHIT OUT OF ME when cishetero people start going on about how "they've chaaaaaanged" and give seemingly endless chances for this better behavior that shows growth and evolution. They clearly have not. It isn't your job as a person of privilege to decide whether the person in question has sufficiently changed. The people who have been hurt should be the arbiters of that, and when they're not, it comes across as very dismissive. I do STRONGLY believe that people of relative privilege should be the most involved in critiquing the bad behavior and educating the person or entity bc it's a lot of labor to ask of people who are being hurt to do it - but also recognize that often the privileged folks will not have enough education themselves to do that well. 

[glw]

I don't think there can be an age at which a person is expected to know something; there are a million reasons why a person would not and I guess I don't see the point in saying "you should have known that!" If they truly did not know... then they didn't know. I do think that what someone does in response to being presented with the new information is a sign of maturity. I'd expect by the early to mid-20's a person should be mature enough to say, "I didn't know that, I'm sorry, I won't do/say it again." I don't condemn someone forever for that. Now, if the response is to continue to say/do something either intentionally to hurt someone, or in spite of hurting someone ("you can't tell me what to do/PC culture ruins everything/people are too sensitive"), then that's not easily forgivable.

I see situations like Harry with the Nazi arm band as different, though, because I don't think he had never heard that wearing Nazi paraphernalia was wrong. I think that falls into the category of doing something you know is wrong to be edgy/irreverent/"funny", and I think that's a sign of immaturity. By the time you're in your late teens to early twenties you should be growing out of that. And, it doesn't make it any less wrong to do it, and still warrants an apology.

ETA: I also totally agree with PPs who said that no one owes forgiveness to another person who's been an asshole, even if they've since changed their behavior.

[seeyalater52]

And I hold people in positions of power to higher standards. Period. I'm not really that interested in who bears responsibility (the person themselves, the institutions that let them live in a bubble and didn't teach them better) but generally the higher profile you are, the wider the reach of the harms when you do stupid shit. In some cases, doing it should be enough to rid you of whatever power and influence you have. If you want to work on growing and changing you can do that in your own personal life without the title and influence to do harm in the process.

But I'm a little mean.

[oswin]

Playing devil's advocate for a minute here - why is it socially acceptable to dress up as a pirate (real life pirates being horrible people) but not a Nazi? Scary and/or villain costumes are par for the course for Halloween and costume parties. My own instincts tell me that pirate is okay (see also: brainwashing by Hollywood because Pirates of the Caribbean made pirates sexy - or at least hilarious) but Nazi is not, but I can't even figure out why, just that Nazis are evil and I wouldn't want to dress as one.

ETA: it's entirely possible the correct answer here is "don't dress up like a pirate either", in which case I wonder where we should draw the line.

[af1212]

Mar 10, 2021 10:32:44 GMT -5 oswin said:

Playing devil's advocate for a minute here - why is it socially acceptable to dress up as a pirate (real life pirates being horrible people) but not a Nazi? Scary and/or villain costumes are par for the course for Halloween and costume parties. My own instincts tell me that pirate is okay (see also: brainwashing by Hollywood because Pirates of the Caribbean made pirates sexy - or at least hilarious) but Nazi is not, but I can't even figure out why, just that Nazis are evil and I wouldn't want to dress as one.

ETA: it's entirely possible the correct answer here is "don't dress up like a pirate either", in which case I wonder where we should draw the line.

Hmm this is interesting! I mean there is the show Jake and the Neverland pirates which is made for very young kids. But could you imagine a nazi cartoon for preschoolers - terrible.

Now I wonder too about individual people who are awful - Jack the Ripper, the unabomber, etc were all popular Halloween costumes

[notreal]

Mar 10, 2021 10:32:44 GMT -5 oswin said:

Playing devil's advocate for a minute here - why is it socially acceptable to dress up as a pirate (real life pirates being horrible people) but not a Nazi? Scary and/or villain costumes are par for the course for Halloween and costume parties. My own instincts tell me that pirate is okay (see also: brainwashing by Hollywood because Pirates of the Caribbean made pirates sexy - or at least hilarious) but Nazi is not, but I can't even figure out why, just that Nazis are evil and I wouldn't want to dress as one.

ETA: it's entirely possible the correct answer here is "don't dress up like a pirate either", in which case I wonder where we should draw the line.

For me, I don't have living relatives who were brutalized by Pirates, so one seems more egregious than the other.  But truly, neither is really a group we should be emulating.

[Deleted]

I refuse to play "what about" in regards to dressing up as a Nazi. Really?

ETA: This is definitely a "you should know better" situation.

[seeyalater52]

Mar 10, 2021 10:37:51 GMT -5 @pixy0stix said:

I refuse to play "what about" in regards to dressing up as a Nazi. Really?

ETA: This is definitely a "you should know better" situation.

This this this this.

Nothing good lies in this direction.

[oswin]

Mar 10, 2021 10:36:15 GMT -5 af1212 said:

Mar 10, 2021 10:32:44 GMT -5 oswin said:

Playing devil's advocate for a minute here - why is it socially acceptable to dress up as a pirate (real life pirates being horrible people) but not a Nazi? Scary and/or villain costumes are par for the course for Halloween and costume parties. My own instincts tell me that pirate is okay (see also: brainwashing by Hollywood because Pirates of the Caribbean made pirates sexy - or at least hilarious) but Nazi is not, but I can't even figure out why, just that Nazis are evil and I wouldn't want to dress as one.

ETA: it's entirely possible the correct answer here is "don't dress up like a pirate either", in which case I wonder where we should draw the line.

Hmm this is interesting! I mean there is the show Jake and the Neverland pirates which is made for very young kids. But could you imagine a nazi cartoon for preschoolers - terrible.

Now I wonder too about individual people who are awful - Jack the Ripper, the unabomber, etc were all popular Halloween costumes

I mean, it's kind like society at large accepts all sorts of things that when you think about them probably shouldn't be socially acceptable but are anyway. But these standards of what is acceptable change over time and with different groups, like celebrating Confederate generals - finally it's become unpopular, though some people still cling to it. I do agree that people in positions of power should be held to a higher standard, because they have more influence and can do much more harm than other individuals.