4 ms·

I would most certainly say the same to a bunch of anonymous, self-righteous Westerners crying for retribution in between parrotting disgusting stereotypes. But

by ceol 13y ago

I would most certainly say the same to a bunch of anonymous, self-righteous Westerners crying for retribution in between parrotting disgusting stereotypes. But I'm not sure how you could think a child tourist scrawling his name on a statue is equivalent to a hateful organization completely destroying a monument.

jlgreco 13y ago
I never stated that I thought they were equivalent, either in magnitude or severity. You are putting words in my mouth.
- msie 13y ago
  You could have worded it better then because I thought the same thing too.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    The fact that the two acts were not equivalent (which should be plain to see) does not mean that there are no parallels which can not be examined. Not all comparisons imply equivalence.
- ceol 13y ago
  If you do not believe they are equivalent, then there was no point in asking if I would act the same way for both situations. I understand you were trying to show some sort of hypocrisy in my logic, but that isn't an argument in itself, and since, by your own admission, they are different situations, it's wrong to compare them in the first place.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    I believe that both situations have plenty of parrallels, but are not equivalent. Obviously blowing up multi-ton statues with explosives and graffiti are two very different activities in magnitude and severity. Nevertheless, they have many clear parallels. My objection is to your assertion that some people are allowed to express their objection to the art and some people are not. Many "westerners" who have never been in that hemisphere, nor have an particular interest in art, objected loudly to the dynamiting of those statues. Some of them did so anonymously on the internet. Is this okay because that act was more energetic, dramatic, and irreversible (the reason the two acts cannot be said to be equivalent)? Is it okay for another reason? (I don't know what standard you are using to determine if somebody is "self-righteous", so perhaps that is the difference to you?) Or perhaps do you think that it was not okay for "westerners" who didn't care about art to object to that act anonymously on the internet? These specific objections that you raised ("westerners", "anonymous", "don't care about the art anyway", "self-righteous") make much sense to me (you offered them with little to no justification), and I am trying to grok the extent to which you think they are valid.
    - ceol 13y ago
      I'm mostly talking about the folks who are calling for this kid, or his parents, to be beaten, fined, or punished in some way. I'm also talking about the people who use it as an excuse to complain about how Chinese people are louder, ruder, or generally worse than other cultures. I don't have a problem with people complaining about defacing artifacts in general. It's shameful. But this kid was one of many who wrote his name on that statue, and one of many who defaced an ancient artifact as a tourist in another country. It only takes a few seconds to realize that to be the case, so the people condemning the child specifically are narrow-minded and probably just out to get their fill of hate, in my opinion.
      - jlgreco 13y ago
        > "I'm mostly talking about the folks who are calling for this kid, or his parents, to be beaten, fined, or punished in some way. I'm also talking about the people who use it as an excuse to complain about how Chinese people are louder, ruder, or generally worse than other cultures." These people are without doubt going to far, but I see no reason to say that they don't have a right to be offended in any capacity. The problem is that they are being racist and calling for brutal punishment, not that they are westerners, don't care about art, anonymous, or self-righteous. Those things are perfectly fine (or in the case of "self-righteous", ambiguous.)

by ceol 13y ago

jlgreco 13y ago

I never stated that I thought they were equivalent, either in magnitude or severity. You are putting words in my mouth.

msie 13y ago
You could have worded it better then because I thought the same thing too.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  The fact that the two acts were not equivalent (which should be plain to see) does not mean that there are no parallels which can not be examined. Not all comparisons imply equivalence.
ceol 13y ago
If you do not believe they are equivalent, then there was no point in asking if I would act the same way for both situations. I understand you were trying to show some sort of hypocrisy in my logic, but that isn't an argument in itself, and since, by your own admission, they are different situations, it's wrong to compare them in the first place.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  I believe that both situations have plenty of parrallels, but are not equivalent. Obviously blowing up multi-ton statues with explosives and graffiti are two very different activities in magnitude and severity. Nevertheless, they have many clear parallels. My objection is to your assertion that some people are allowed to express their objection to the art and some people are not. Many "westerners" who have never been in that hemisphere, nor have an particular interest in art, objected loudly to the dynamiting of those statues. Some of them did so anonymously on the internet. Is this okay because that act was more energetic, dramatic, and irreversible (the reason the two acts cannot be said to be equivalent)? Is it okay for another reason? (I don't know what standard you are using to determine if somebody is "self-righteous", so perhaps that is the difference to you?) Or perhaps do you think that it was not okay for "westerners" who didn't care about art to object to that act anonymously on the internet? These specific objections that you raised ("westerners", "anonymous", "don't care about the art anyway", "self-righteous") make much sense to me (you offered them with little to no justification), and I am trying to grok the extent to which you think they are valid.
  - ceol 13y ago
    I'm mostly talking about the folks who are calling for this kid, or his parents, to be beaten, fined, or punished in some way. I'm also talking about the people who use it as an excuse to complain about how Chinese people are louder, ruder, or generally worse than other cultures. I don't have a problem with people complaining about defacing artifacts in general. It's shameful. But this kid was one of many who wrote his name on that statue, and one of many who defaced an ancient artifact as a tourist in another country. It only takes a few seconds to realize that to be the case, so the people condemning the child specifically are narrow-minded and probably just out to get their fill of hate, in my opinion.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      > "I'm mostly talking about the folks who are calling for this kid, or his parents, to be beaten, fined, or punished in some way. I'm also talking about the people who use it as an excuse to complain about how Chinese people are louder, ruder, or generally worse than other cultures." These people are without doubt going to far, but I see no reason to say that they don't have a right to be offended in any capacity. The problem is that they are being racist and calling for brutal punishment, not that they are westerners, don't care about art, anonymous, or self-righteous. Those things are perfectly fine (or in the case of "self-righteous", ambiguous.)