4 ms·

About 'innocent', I'm not sure why I went for that choice of word. I think an earlier version of the comment in my head had "killed" instead of "starved" but th

About 'innocent', I'm not sure why I went for that choice of word. I think an earlier version of the comment in my head had "killed" instead of "starved" but that would include war casualties which are more ambiguous so the innocent thing. Either way, it was incoherent and you're right that "people" was a better choice of word. English isn't my native language but it's no excuse because I've been speaking and writing in it for years. >To address the main point, history is full of this. I agree, but I do feel it is relevant to acknowledge the portions of someone's legacy that aren't clean. The quote in isolation is a fair and fine one, I suppose. I would show more restraint in bringing up the cursory comment on Churchill if the context of the thread was something else entirely.

ljm 6y ago
> it is relevant to acknowledge the portions of someone's legacy that aren't clean For sure. I think this gets complicated, especially in the middle of heated discussions or on the internet, when this stuff is brought up ad-hominem. Or close enough. It's why I don't want to bring anger into this discussion and create another pro/anti divide, because we're all going to see it different ways. I challenge anyone to come up with a person who was a squeaky clean legacy. I contend that it is impossible, because the goalposts for 'cleanliness' change as the times do.
- mlthoughts2018 6y ago
  It has nothing to do with people having a squeaky clean legacy. If a world famous celebrity uses the megaphone of a televised interview to double down on and expand on views that it’s ok to slap women, that is a huge, dramatic event. That’s not just some small “we all make mistakes” transgression to be forgiven while we remember that person at his best. It is a huge, intentional literal broadcast of a very harmful belief, that we should not minimize or ignore or even set aside to remember other things about them, due to its level of severity and the sustained commitment to it over years that he displayed. I think it’s very specious and very disingenuous to try to bring in any type of “let he who is sinless cast the first stone” or “let’s remember the good with the bad because he is only human” type of defense. That is just not acceptable in a case like this.
  - ljm 6y ago
    Alright, so what is your proposed idea to deal with _anyone_ like this? If Connery's remark is huge and dramatic, what does that mean for everyone else? It took Connery to die for you to bring this topic up. I would expect you cared about this before the news, and not just in light of it.
    - mlthoughts2018 6y ago
      This issues has been brought up about Connery all the time. Most people who display this type of direct misogyny don’t happen to also be world-famous movie stars using a national television broadcast to amplify the message. So obviously because of the harm it propagates and the precedent it sets, Connery’s behavior should be railed against with much more effort than transgressions with far less widespread impact - but of course regular people committing the same transgression absolutely deserve for their behavior to be used to highlight moral reprehensibility (assuming they refuse to apologize or retract those views like Connery).

ljm 6y ago

> it is relevant to acknowledge the portions of someone's legacy that aren't clean For sure. I think this gets complicated, especially in the middle of heated discussions or on the internet, when this stuff is brought up ad-hominem. Or close enough. It's why I don't want to bring anger into this discussion and create another pro/anti divide, because we're all going to see it different ways. I challenge anyone to come up with a person who was a squeaky clean legacy. I contend that it is impossible, because the goalposts for 'cleanliness' change as the times do.

mlthoughts2018 6y ago
It has nothing to do with people having a squeaky clean legacy. If a world famous celebrity uses the megaphone of a televised interview to double down on and expand on views that it’s ok to slap women, that is a huge, dramatic event. That’s not just some small “we all make mistakes” transgression to be forgiven while we remember that person at his best. It is a huge, intentional literal broadcast of a very harmful belief, that we should not minimize or ignore or even set aside to remember other things about them, due to its level of severity and the sustained commitment to it over years that he displayed. I think it’s very specious and very disingenuous to try to bring in any type of “let he who is sinless cast the first stone” or “let’s remember the good with the bad because he is only human” type of defense. That is just not acceptable in a case like this.
- ljm 6y ago
  Alright, so what is your proposed idea to deal with _anyone_ like this? If Connery's remark is huge and dramatic, what does that mean for everyone else? It took Connery to die for you to bring this topic up. I would expect you cared about this before the news, and not just in light of it.
  - mlthoughts2018 6y ago
    This issues has been brought up about Connery all the time. Most people who display this type of direct misogyny don’t happen to also be world-famous movie stars using a national television broadcast to amplify the message. So obviously because of the harm it propagates and the precedent it sets, Connery’s behavior should be railed against with much more effort than transgressions with far less widespread impact - but of course regular people committing the same transgression absolutely deserve for their behavior to be used to highlight moral reprehensibility (assuming they refuse to apologize or retract those views like Connery).