From a variety of sources, mostly twitter, I have run across some interesting apologetics for intolerance (and the atrocities that follow) in recent years. In light of my last Journal entry though I will endeavor not to use any specific examples.
And there are far too many examples examples, because these tactics are very old.
The purpose of this journal is to encourage people to spot these cheap tactics early and call them out.
1) "Group A did X, but Group B did X too, so it's okay". No, no it is not. It is also not okay if Group A did X to Group B, if Group B did X to Group A first, or if Group B did more / worse 'X' than Group A did. If doing 'X' is wrong, it is still wrong.
One need only fill in something for X to make this obvious. For instance "bombing civilians". "Group A bombed civilians, but Group B bombed civilians too, so it's okay" No, bombing civilians is not okay. And if Group B bombed civilians first, it's still wrong for Group A (and Group B) to bomb civilians. And if Group B bombed civilians more, it's still wrong for Group A (and Group B) to bomb civilians.
2) "Group A and Group B are just as bad, Group A hates and persecutes Group B, but Group B are equally bad for not tolerating it". Again, no. Pretending that the victims of intolerance and persecution are just as bad as their oppressors is not just wrong but offensive. It is an attempt to equate a motive to do harm (be it physical harm, social harm, economic harm, legal harm, etc) with people not liking being harmed. These are simply not the same thing.
Also, the tactic of defending intolerance pretending that the victims objecting to being harmed "started it" and therefore deserve to be harmed because they are "just as bad" as the Intolerant group harming them...it's a common tactic but to those outside the intolerant group it just is not very convincing. And dealing with the butthurt intolerance-apologist who acts offended at being thought of as an intolerant jerk is...well, tedious. Bringing on number three.
3) "Group A might be intolerant but criticizing them is worse!" Uuugh, this one really needs to stop. The "I'm the real victim here" defense. What sort of special privileged little snowflake thinks it's okay for them to use their freedom of speech to broadcast their intolerance but then act like a wounded victim the second anyone else disagrees or objects? This instant thin-skinned playing the victim card to defend intolerant views is really very pitiful.
Considering this is a favorite tactic of people with a public forum for their message (such as a radio show or newspaper column) used against people without a public forum for their disagreement, and the hypocrisy of attempting to use freedom of speech as a way of denying freedom of speech to others, I find this tactic particularly objectionable.
4) "Group A started it, so Group B's reactions are justified". Remember number two here. There seems to be an idea among apologists that if 'the other side' started it, anything their side does is fine and dandy. Also the logic to pin 'starting it' on the other side can often be very flimsy and usually done by disregarding everything up to a certain point.
And all of this is beside the point, that who started something does not justify any response. Especially a 'worse' response. I mention this because this is one of the tactics people use most often to try to defend an escalation. For instance "Group A only started bombing civilians because Group B sent in the army", noting that this implies Group B 'started it' because they sent in the army, and disregards WHY Group B sent in the army. Since this is a hypothetical, maybe Group A was funding terrorism or part of a drug trade. Or maybe there was no good reason to send in the army...still doesn't make bombing civilians in retaliation okay.
In closing, with a lot of these scenarios and when dealing with apologists for them, they will be treating it like a contest of sides and they want their side to win. That is not the issue. The issue is that some actions are wrong. An atrocity is an atrocity regardless of the circumstances, and it is possible (even common) for multiple sides to be in the wrong in an issue. That's why we have a lot of long term ongoing issues in the world, neither side involved is 'in the right' and none of them really want to solve the issue in any acceptable ways.
| Viewed: |
9 times |
| Added: |
7 years, 8 months ago
01 May 2017 05:51 CEST
|
|
|
