87 ms·

Unfortunately doing bad and good things is not mutually exclusive when talking about a single person, let alone when it's a group of people. Whether the bad pa

Unfortunately doing bad and good things is not mutually exclusive when talking about a single person, let alone when it's a group of people. Whether the bad parts should be tolerated because of the good parts it's another matter (and given the things you're listed, I personally don't care about what good policies you do if that's the price to pay). that said we must be able to talk about policies and outcomes it their own right without tainting them with who has brought them.

wolverine876 5y ago
> we must be able to talk about policies and outcomes it their own right without tainting them with who has brought them I disagree. First, these are policies. Second, I don't care about the other policies unless human rights, including freedom and self-determination (democracy) are maintained.
- ithkuil 5y ago
  This is exactly what I said in my comment (the part in parenthesis), but not phrased against the impersonal policies but against the people who happen to put forward awful things along with policies that would be otherwise good. I think you don't really disagree, because disagreeing would mean that once somebody does something against human rights, everything else they touch must be also bad by definition, thus depriving all future generations of the possibility of doing something good just because they accidentally mentioned it? When it's claimed that Mussolini made run trains on time (which it's very likely a myth, but it doesn't matter for this argument), does it mean that having trains that run on time is a bad idea that can no longer be pursued least we associate ourselves with fascism? That would clearly be silly.
  - trs8080 5y ago
    > disagreeing would mean that once somebody does something against human rights, everything else they touch must be also bad by definition, thus depriving all future generations of the possibility of doing something good just because they accidentally mentioned it what on earth is this argument? to simplify this for you: if you deprive a subset of your population human rights and freedoms and allow a different subset to benefit from that injustice, it isn't a net good - it's supremacist.
    - ithkuil 5y ago
      It seems you're intentionally misunderstanding me. Let me try again: Mr X invents the lightbulb, then kills his wife. I'm not saying Mr X invention of the lightbulb excuses him for having commited murder; I'm saying that the ligthbulb is a good invention despite the person who invented it and that other people can keep using it (while the inventor rots in jail). This is an intentionally silly example because nobody sane will cancel a useful invention because of where it came from, but when we're talking about social policies they are often inextricably tainted by who proposed them and embraced them. You're free to say "I don't care about this subtle point you're making because I'm so concerned about this freak depriving people of human rights that we don't have time to talk about this crap you're talking about". Fair enough. What I don't accept is that you're insinuating that I'm defending this kind of behaviour just because I'm making point you're not interested in.
r00fus 5y ago
Modi is a fundamental nationalist, and this is one of literally a hundred other bad things that has been done. Basic playbook for this kind of ruler is to dismantle democracy - and illegally spying on his opponents is the first step (to remove all opposition).
- ithkuil 5y ago
  I'm not saying the opposite or otherwise supporting Modi. I was trying to make a more subtle point about our ability to discuss things without always being reminded of the all too important political struggles we all have to pay attention to. Your comment seems to prove my point that we all have this instinct of making sure everybody is reminded that if you just hint that somebody awful could perhaps accidentally have stumbled upon a policy that could make sense, you should never talk about that, otherwise you'll give your opponent a validation. I know, that's how we humans work. I'm just saying that sometimes it's a bit unfortunate that we do work that way.
  - r00fus 5y ago
    No, that's not my intent at all - but wouldn't it be considered offtopic to bring up some other positives just to "balance" the discussion? If it's pertinent, by all means bring it up - but you're just bringing up theoretical seems all a bit ivory tower.
    - ithkuil 5y ago
      Please look at the nick names of who makes comments. I was not the one bringing up the positives, I have no idea about anything in Indian politics, not indian, not living there either. I was just pointing out a logical fallacy in one replay because this is a forum of nerds and nerds love to pick nits. The world would be such a nicer place if people political fumes wouldn't intoxicate brains of otherwise sensible people.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    In fact, my experience is the opposite with right-wing nationalist populists (Modi, Netanyahu, Orban, Trump, Boris Johnson to a significant degree, etc.): People don't talk about the political catastrophes; they talk about everything else. One reason is that if you try to talk about the political catastrophes, people try to shut you down. > could perhaps accidentally have stumbled upon a policy that could make sense 'but how did you like the play, Mrs. Lincoln?' > I'm not saying the opposite or otherwise supporting Modi. So what do you say about Modi?

wolverine876 5y ago

> we must be able to talk about policies and outcomes it their own right without tainting them with who has brought them I disagree. First, these are policies. Second, I don't care about the other policies unless human rights, including freedom and self-determination (democracy) are maintained.

ithkuil 5y ago
This is exactly what I said in my comment (the part in parenthesis), but not phrased against the impersonal policies but against the people who happen to put forward awful things along with policies that would be otherwise good. I think you don't really disagree, because disagreeing would mean that once somebody does something against human rights, everything else they touch must be also bad by definition, thus depriving all future generations of the possibility of doing something good just because they accidentally mentioned it? When it's claimed that Mussolini made run trains on time (which it's very likely a myth, but it doesn't matter for this argument), does it mean that having trains that run on time is a bad idea that can no longer be pursued least we associate ourselves with fascism? That would clearly be silly.
- trs8080 5y ago
  > disagreeing would mean that once somebody does something against human rights, everything else they touch must be also bad by definition, thus depriving all future generations of the possibility of doing something good just because they accidentally mentioned it what on earth is this argument? to simplify this for you: if you deprive a subset of your population human rights and freedoms and allow a different subset to benefit from that injustice, it isn't a net good - it's supremacist.
  - ithkuil 5y ago
    It seems you're intentionally misunderstanding me. Let me try again: Mr X invents the lightbulb, then kills his wife. I'm not saying Mr X invention of the lightbulb excuses him for having commited murder; I'm saying that the ligthbulb is a good invention despite the person who invented it and that other people can keep using it (while the inventor rots in jail). This is an intentionally silly example because nobody sane will cancel a useful invention because of where it came from, but when we're talking about social policies they are often inextricably tainted by who proposed them and embraced them. You're free to say "I don't care about this subtle point you're making because I'm so concerned about this freak depriving people of human rights that we don't have time to talk about this crap you're talking about". Fair enough. What I don't accept is that you're insinuating that I'm defending this kind of behaviour just because I'm making point you're not interested in.

r00fus 5y ago

Modi is a fundamental nationalist, and this is one of literally a hundred other bad things that has been done. Basic playbook for this kind of ruler is to dismantle democracy - and illegally spying on his opponents is the first step (to remove all opposition).

ithkuil 5y ago
I'm not saying the opposite or otherwise supporting Modi. I was trying to make a more subtle point about our ability to discuss things without always being reminded of the all too important political struggles we all have to pay attention to. Your comment seems to prove my point that we all have this instinct of making sure everybody is reminded that if you just hint that somebody awful could perhaps accidentally have stumbled upon a policy that could make sense, you should never talk about that, otherwise you'll give your opponent a validation. I know, that's how we humans work. I'm just saying that sometimes it's a bit unfortunate that we do work that way.
- r00fus 5y ago
  No, that's not my intent at all - but wouldn't it be considered offtopic to bring up some other positives just to "balance" the discussion? If it's pertinent, by all means bring it up - but you're just bringing up theoretical seems all a bit ivory tower.
  - ithkuil 5y ago
    Please look at the nick names of who makes comments. I was not the one bringing up the positives, I have no idea about anything in Indian politics, not indian, not living there either. I was just pointing out a logical fallacy in one replay because this is a forum of nerds and nerds love to pick nits. The world would be such a nicer place if people political fumes wouldn't intoxicate brains of otherwise sensible people.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  In fact, my experience is the opposite with right-wing nationalist populists (Modi, Netanyahu, Orban, Trump, Boris Johnson to a significant degree, etc.): People don't talk about the political catastrophes; they talk about everything else. One reason is that if you try to talk about the political catastrophes, people try to shut you down. > could perhaps accidentally have stumbled upon a policy that could make sense 'but how did you like the play, Mrs. Lincoln?' > I'm not saying the opposite or otherwise supporting Modi. So what do you say about Modi?