Tip #84 "Both Sides"
Aug. 18th, 2017 12:58 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wingedbeastWith the events of this past Saturday, I feel there are things that I should not have to say. I should not have to speak opposition to white supremacy, white nationalism, or the Nazis. I would hope that can be taken as a given. But, there is an element of many responses to the riot and violence, including one man ramming a car into a crowd of people injuring many and killing one, that I feel important to address. And, I'll address it in this series, because I hear it in these arguments, too.
When you discuss conflicts, particularly ones wherein your side or the side with which you empathize has done wrong, there will be a temptation. It will be tempting for multiple reasons. You might enjoy the feeling of being detached and above the conflict. You might seek a solution in which both sides are equally pleased. You might want the sense of having an advanced, complex understanding of the issues at hand without needing to go through the effort of understanding said issues.
Be very careful, before you even begin to say "both sides".
It is impossible to find a conflict in which one side bares no wrong, whatsoever. It is incredibly rare to find a conflict in which one side is the epitome of evil. It is just as rare as that to find a conflict in which both sides bare equal guilt in the conflict.
I'm not saying that it never happens. I'm not saying it's impossible. I am saying that it is incredibly rare and that you need to first do the research and then make the case. To do otherwise is to punish the innocent as a means of protecting the guilty.
This is something to keep in mind when you are a teacher dealing with children in a conflict. Yes, I know you have other duties, but this is still a requirement. This is something to keep in mind when you are a judge, presiding over a dispute. This is something to keep in mind when you are a voter looking at two political parties or two candidates (see "teacher" but more-so).
This is especially important when the conflict at hand is one side with cause of the violent extermination of the other and the other side with a cause of resisting that violent extermination. You don't get to sit back and say "both sides" in order to absolve yourself of the responsibility of understanding the situation and, unless a robust case can be made for an alternative, taking sides. Otherwise, the alternative is taking the side of the guilty.
If you are on one side and feel the need to make your side not the guilty party, despite all appearances or what the reality would be without a default to "both sides", you need to understand the situation and make a robust case.
Again, I realize the temptation of leaping to "both sides". It grants you the benefits of having observed, investigated, comprehended, and then taken a well-considered moral stand without having to consider anything or take a stand. Yet, it is still what it is. Or, it grants you a reprieve from punishment or ill feelings of others (or does a bit of cruelty to your opponent). It still is what it is.
"Both sides" will always need a robust case in order to support it. Without that robust case, it's just another lie.
When you discuss conflicts, particularly ones wherein your side or the side with which you empathize has done wrong, there will be a temptation. It will be tempting for multiple reasons. You might enjoy the feeling of being detached and above the conflict. You might seek a solution in which both sides are equally pleased. You might want the sense of having an advanced, complex understanding of the issues at hand without needing to go through the effort of understanding said issues.
Be very careful, before you even begin to say "both sides".
It is impossible to find a conflict in which one side bares no wrong, whatsoever. It is incredibly rare to find a conflict in which one side is the epitome of evil. It is just as rare as that to find a conflict in which both sides bare equal guilt in the conflict.
I'm not saying that it never happens. I'm not saying it's impossible. I am saying that it is incredibly rare and that you need to first do the research and then make the case. To do otherwise is to punish the innocent as a means of protecting the guilty.
This is something to keep in mind when you are a teacher dealing with children in a conflict. Yes, I know you have other duties, but this is still a requirement. This is something to keep in mind when you are a judge, presiding over a dispute. This is something to keep in mind when you are a voter looking at two political parties or two candidates (see "teacher" but more-so).
This is especially important when the conflict at hand is one side with cause of the violent extermination of the other and the other side with a cause of resisting that violent extermination. You don't get to sit back and say "both sides" in order to absolve yourself of the responsibility of understanding the situation and, unless a robust case can be made for an alternative, taking sides. Otherwise, the alternative is taking the side of the guilty.
If you are on one side and feel the need to make your side not the guilty party, despite all appearances or what the reality would be without a default to "both sides", you need to understand the situation and make a robust case.
Again, I realize the temptation of leaping to "both sides". It grants you the benefits of having observed, investigated, comprehended, and then taken a well-considered moral stand without having to consider anything or take a stand. Yet, it is still what it is. Or, it grants you a reprieve from punishment or ill feelings of others (or does a bit of cruelty to your opponent). It still is what it is.
"Both sides" will always need a robust case in order to support it. Without that robust case, it's just another lie.
Delete after reading
Date: 2017-08-19 01:50 am (UTC)It's a trick
Date: 2017-08-21 11:16 am (UTC)Re: It's a trick
Date: 2017-08-21 04:14 pm (UTC)But, it happens in other contexts and, considering the series, I wanted it to be wide-ranging. So, when someone says that BLM is a black supremacist group, I want them to have to make a robust case and I want them to find out that they can't.