6 ms·

It isn’t enough to focus criticism against a specific individual or narrow group. You also have to consider whether the criticism is justified or echos specific

by seoaeu 4y ago

It isn’t enough to focus criticism against a specific individual or narrow group. You also have to consider whether the criticism is justified or echos specific stereotypes For instance, there’s many who feel that some of the criticism against Barack Obama was racist. Not because it isn’t ok to criticize a US president but because prior presidents hadn’t been treated similarly/held to the same standard

notacoward 4y ago
What if someone has consistently criticized other people or governments for comparable behavior? In my experience, it makes absolutely no difference. Even international organizations with rock-solid records of speaking out all over the world get the same treatment. What's the excuse then? It's just guilt by association, only it's not even real association, from people who absolutely should know better.
- seoaeu 4y ago
  Not sure whether you meant to respond to a different comment (mine didn’t say anything about “excuses”), but assuming this was meant as a reply… You clearly have one/several specific organizations in mind, but I’ll point out that my comment was about the content of criticism rather than the track record of the group making it. Track record gives a hint of whether someone might be acting in bad faith, but it is perfectly possible for someone to usually offer fair assessments but let their prejudices slip though with regards to members of one minority group or another. In fact, some would argue that everyone has such blind spots and that they can only be mitigated, but never eliminated. Not sure I understand your point about guilt by association, but if you are arguing that using the same talking points as a known racist shouldn’t make others suspect you of being a racist… then I think we’re probably going to disagree.
  - notacoward 4y ago
    > if you are arguing that using the same talking points as a known racist shouldn’t make others suspect you of being a racist That is a (very) thinly veiled version of exactly the tactic we're talking about, and I probably shouldn't engage with it, but ... who says something doesn't affect whether it's true. Why is the demand for perfection - dare I say purity? - so one sided, and limited to certain topics? If a racist says that it's wrong to assault peaceful pall-bearers at a funeral for a journalist who was already a victim of a highly questionable military action ... well, they're right. One should of course be careful not to validate anything else the racist might say, or to let them shift focus/proportion beyond where it belongs, but rejecting truth because it was stated by The Wrong People is exactly what the racists themselves like to do (not to mention every authoritarian of every stripe). It's not reasoned ethical debate. It's pure blind partisanship, which is not healthy even in an otherwise good cause. Set aside the ad hominem and guilt by association. Consider whether something is true no matter who says it, and whether its truth suggests change.

by seoaeu 4y ago

notacoward 4y ago

What if someone has consistently criticized other people or governments for comparable behavior? In my experience, it makes absolutely no difference. Even international organizations with rock-solid records of speaking out all over the world get the same treatment. What's the excuse then? It's just guilt by association, only it's not even real association, from people who absolutely should know better.

seoaeu 4y ago
Not sure whether you meant to respond to a different comment (mine didn’t say anything about “excuses”), but assuming this was meant as a reply… You clearly have one/several specific organizations in mind, but I’ll point out that my comment was about the content of criticism rather than the track record of the group making it. Track record gives a hint of whether someone might be acting in bad faith, but it is perfectly possible for someone to usually offer fair assessments but let their prejudices slip though with regards to members of one minority group or another. In fact, some would argue that everyone has such blind spots and that they can only be mitigated, but never eliminated. Not sure I understand your point about guilt by association, but if you are arguing that using the same talking points as a known racist shouldn’t make others suspect you of being a racist… then I think we’re probably going to disagree.
- notacoward 4y ago
  > if you are arguing that using the same talking points as a known racist shouldn’t make others suspect you of being a racist That is a (very) thinly veiled version of exactly the tactic we're talking about, and I probably shouldn't engage with it, but ... who says something doesn't affect whether it's true. Why is the demand for perfection - dare I say purity? - so one sided, and limited to certain topics? If a racist says that it's wrong to assault peaceful pall-bearers at a funeral for a journalist who was already a victim of a highly questionable military action ... well, they're right. One should of course be careful not to validate anything else the racist might say, or to let them shift focus/proportion beyond where it belongs, but rejecting truth because it was stated by The Wrong People is exactly what the racists themselves like to do (not to mention every authoritarian of every stripe). It's not reasoned ethical debate. It's pure blind partisanship, which is not healthy even in an otherwise good cause. Set aside the ad hominem and guilt by association. Consider whether something is true no matter who says it, and whether its truth suggests change.