3 ms·

Normal rules of balance can be twisted or broken in this case, depending on your desired outcome. On the one hand, you've got the (reasonable) rule "always con

Normal rules of balance can be twisted or broken in this case, depending on your desired outcome. On the one hand, you've got the (reasonable) rule "always condemn and distance yourself from pedophilia". On the other hand, you've got the also reasonable rule "never discriminate against someone because of their gender". If the Greens, Lib Dems, Reddit, or anyone else involved had chosen not to hire her, she could stir up outrage against them for gender discrimination. If they did hire her, the public could stir up outrage against them for their connection to pedophiles. It's easy to agree that both pedophilia and gender discrimination are bad. It's harder to take action, especially when people have prior agendas.

filoleg 6y ago
>If the Greens, Lib Dems, Reddit, or anyone else involved had chosen not to hire her, she could stir up outrage against them for gender discrimination We don't even need to hypothesize this specific "if", because that's exactly what she did[0] after being ousted from Green Party due to all the pedophilia-related concerns. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aimee_Challenor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aimee_Challenor
- slowmovintarget 6y ago
  In a rational world, that wouldn't have happened, but we seem to have lost our ability to say behavior A (which has supporting facts) is significantly worse than behavior B (which is alleged). Preying on children, or advocating for those who want to, is a significantly bigger problem than the _accusation_ of bias based on preference.
  - SamBam 6y ago
    Except as I understand it her accusations didn't stick at all. Did anyone buy that it was gender/trans-discrimination? Certainly the party did not hire her back. So it seems as if, by this minor measure, the world can still be rational.
  - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
    Do such allegations really hold any real water to achieve political ends? I find that every time I read about such matters, it is from some Anglo-Saxon place where emotions about such matters seem to run high. I cannot think of any Dutch occurrence of someone being dismissed from a party alleging any gender discrimination, and I would to what extent such arguments are truly something that sways the Anglo-Saxon, because every time I see them made, publicly or privately, they seem to be coming from an Anglo-Saxon source, in particular the U.S.A., but the U.K. is not very far behind. But perhaps, it is simply a function of district-based politics where one votes for the man, rather than the party, so the personal life and identity of politicians takes a far grander scale than in other systems.
    - esyir 6y ago
      Is a claim of discrimination as much of a superweapon of discourse in Dutch culture as it is in the US? From what I've experienced, Europeans are a bit less prickly on such matters.
      - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
        I cannot remember any such counter claims made when similar terminations of politicians occurred in the Netherlands, discrimination or otherwise. The most similar situation that comes to mind was the situation of Philomena Bijlhout in 2002, who was terminated after having lied about being a member of the Bouterse Militia when the December Murders occurred. That was that; — he was terminated without any further drama or allegations that it was political gamesmanship, sexism, racism, xenophobia, manipulated evidence or anything else when the pictures that proved his word false surfaced. I find that U.S.A. and U.K. politicians often have what I would consider petulant blame shifting when such matters occur that I feel are not strategic and only serve to bury them deeper, so I wonder if they actually are strategic in such a political climate of districts which creates far more extensive tribalism and voter loyalty, whereof I wonder if it contributes to actually making such claims worthwhile. I have noticed that the U.S. and U.K. population seems to be very loyal in general and often unreasonably defend a cause, product, and man to the death, even when flaws are apparent.
SamBam 6y ago
What? This makes no sense. If you refuse to hire someone because of their (alleged, I have no idea) implicit support for pedophilia, it has nothing to do with refusing to hire someone because of their gender. The fact that someone could pretend you aren't hiring them because of their gender is moot when you can simply point to the real reason you're not hiring them. If I'm faced with the question of whether to hire an unrepentant serial killer, I'm not going to let their gender inform my decision. That's not "balance" in any way.

filoleg 6y ago

>If the Greens, Lib Dems, Reddit, or anyone else involved had chosen not to hire her, she could stir up outrage against them for gender discrimination We don't even need to hypothesize this specific "if", because that's exactly what she did[0] after being ousted from Green Party due to all the pedophilia-related concerns. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aimee_Challenor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aimee_Challenor

slowmovintarget 6y ago
In a rational world, that wouldn't have happened, but we seem to have lost our ability to say behavior A (which has supporting facts) is significantly worse than behavior B (which is alleged). Preying on children, or advocating for those who want to, is a significantly bigger problem than the _accusation_ of bias based on preference.
- SamBam 6y ago
  Except as I understand it her accusations didn't stick at all. Did anyone buy that it was gender/trans-discrimination? Certainly the party did not hire her back. So it seems as if, by this minor measure, the world can still be rational.
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  Do such allegations really hold any real water to achieve political ends? I find that every time I read about such matters, it is from some Anglo-Saxon place where emotions about such matters seem to run high. I cannot think of any Dutch occurrence of someone being dismissed from a party alleging any gender discrimination, and I would to what extent such arguments are truly something that sways the Anglo-Saxon, because every time I see them made, publicly or privately, they seem to be coming from an Anglo-Saxon source, in particular the U.S.A., but the U.K. is not very far behind. But perhaps, it is simply a function of district-based politics where one votes for the man, rather than the party, so the personal life and identity of politicians takes a far grander scale than in other systems.
  - esyir 6y ago
    Is a claim of discrimination as much of a superweapon of discourse in Dutch culture as it is in the US? From what I've experienced, Europeans are a bit less prickly on such matters.
    - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
      I cannot remember any such counter claims made when similar terminations of politicians occurred in the Netherlands, discrimination or otherwise. The most similar situation that comes to mind was the situation of Philomena Bijlhout in 2002, who was terminated after having lied about being a member of the Bouterse Militia when the December Murders occurred. That was that; — he was terminated without any further drama or allegations that it was political gamesmanship, sexism, racism, xenophobia, manipulated evidence or anything else when the pictures that proved his word false surfaced. I find that U.S.A. and U.K. politicians often have what I would consider petulant blame shifting when such matters occur that I feel are not strategic and only serve to bury them deeper, so I wonder if they actually are strategic in such a political climate of districts which creates far more extensive tribalism and voter loyalty, whereof I wonder if it contributes to actually making such claims worthwhile. I have noticed that the U.S. and U.K. population seems to be very loyal in general and often unreasonably defend a cause, product, and man to the death, even when flaws are apparent.

SamBam 6y ago

What? This makes no sense. If you refuse to hire someone because of their (alleged, I have no idea) implicit support for pedophilia, it has nothing to do with refusing to hire someone because of their gender. The fact that someone could pretend you aren't hiring them because of their gender is moot when you can simply point to the real reason you're not hiring them. If I'm faced with the question of whether to hire an unrepentant serial killer, I'm not going to let their gender inform my decision. That's not "balance" in any way.