4 ms·
As I said to another comment, this is all just a restatement in flowery terms of “if you’re not with me you’re against me”. And that should scare people.
by ls612 6y ago
As I said to another comment, this is all just a restatement in flowery terms of “if you’re not with me you’re against me”. And that should scare people.
- TulliusCicero 6y ago> “if you’re not with me you’re against me” ...but in many situations, that's accurate. Someone who was 'neutral' in the civil rights era on the topic of Jim Crow would be implicitly supporting Jim Crow. Their neutrality implies tolerance of the injustice that was the state of things at the time.
- dimgl 6y agoWhat major injustices do you perceive are happening today in the United States that require laws equivalent to the Jim Crow laws? No one is turning a blind eye to our society's problems. I think we're all just wondering what major justice it is we need to deliver.
- TulliusCicero 6y agoWell, recently there was gay marriage and other gay rights issues. Maybe trans issues are more topical right now. > No one is turning a blind eye to our society's problems. Is this a serious statement?
- ska 6y agoI find this statement confusing. The Jim Crow laws were a source of injustice, not an answer to it. Did you mean the civil rights act and related laws?
- rbecker 6y agoTolerance is not support. That's why we have different words for it. For example, you probably tolerate the marketing of sugary drinks. Does that mean you support Coca Cola?
- TulliusCicero 6y agoIt's not always support, but in the case of status quo injustice, it's tacit support.
- mindslight 6y agoPolitical change does not happen overnight, or everything would already be perfect. I would much rather someone "implicitly support Jim Crow" while remaining open to change when the tide finally shifts, than for them to be forced to pick a side and dig in their heels as an explicit supporter.
- krainboltgreene 6y ago“You always told me ‘It takes time.’ It’s taken my father’s time, my mother’s time, my uncle’s time, my brothers’ and my sisters’ time. How much time do you want for your progress?” - James Baldwin
- mindslight 6y agoI don't see how that is a response to the core of what I said. It's lamentable that change takes so long, and this is often used as an excuse to discourage progress. But I was making the point that when you force an indifferent person to pick a side, you're most likely creating more opposition to your cause.
- mathgladiator 6y agoIt may not even be indifference just plain ole laziness or being cautionary.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- munificent 6y agoI'm fascinated by how each of these restatements in some ways say the exact same thing but also strongly imply very different moral choices. Another restatement might be: "If you don't die on this hill, you leave me to die on it." I think the key difference between Tutu's phrasing and "if you're not with me you're against me", is that the former presumes some people don't have the luxury of choosing sides and they are requesting support from people who do. If you are, for example, Black in the US, you can't really choose to not make racism a priority, since you will experience its effects whether you like it or not. "If you're not with me you're against me" doesn't imply anything about the speaker's own agency. In that sense, I think it's a less compassionate thing to say, because the listener chould just as well ask them to change sides. Tutu's framing makes it clearer that not everyone has that freedom.