- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Beefster wrote:
an ideology informs your actions. White supremacy is bad because it affects one’s character and the way its advocates treat people
This is important. It is easy to condemn violence. What about more subtle forms of racism. Telling a racist joke, or perhaps not letting your children play with (or date) people of color, displaying the confederate flag on your lawn, perhaps marching in a peaceful white supremacist protest rally. These is nothing illegal in these activities (to my knowledge), however that does not make them right.
There are still broad standards of moral and ethical behavior that apply universally and I understand white supremacist ideology to be immoral.
I recognize that there are bad parts of any groups, religions, and political parties. I suppose if we wanted to arrange all groups in a spectrum there would be many shades of grey. But the existence of bad elements almost everywhere does not take away my ability to distinguish an organization/movement that is inherently bad. The existence of grey does not make “black” just another shade of grey.
I have an anarchist streak, and I’ll say this… it is always the establishment which hates any physical revolt, because it is a threat to it. In some countries, groups have to defend themselves, whether against sectarian violence, government violence, crime or anything like that.
It’s easy to preach Gandhi or MLK without realizing the governments in each case caved in because they realized that the vast numbers of Indians and African Americans revolting in a more physical way would cost them dear.
That guy who stood in front of the Chinese tank with his shopping bags? Never seen again. Great picture. Politically a failure.
Northern Ireland… people coming in, breaking down doors, shooting folk, burning houses… etc and it was well known that the police and the British military were complicit. I would say one side was often as bad as the other in Ireland, but it was not as simple a matter as lay back and take your beating.
My big criticism of the American “left” (which I don’t think it actually is!) is that it just comes over as so weak. Big Nazis with guns and fists can walk all over them.
Left and right are utterly meaningless words that are extraordinarily relative. The “right” today has more in common with the “left” in history, for instance. To make any sort of meaningful political spectrum, you have to work with terms that actually have a well-defined and constant frame of reference. For instance, Authoritarian vs Libertarian, Populist vs Individualist, Nationalist vs Globalist, Pacifist vs Terrorist, Regressive vs Progressive, Tradition vs Change, etc… Most things in reality line up somewhere in the middle of any spectrum and absolute extremes are rare.
And typically, it’s the ideologies from the extremes where the worst behaviors come from. Racism comes from extreme nationalism, for instance. Extreme ideologies take hold because their leaders are so persuasive that they can convince people that they are in the middle and everyone else is at an extreme. Sometimes they take hold as a knee-jerk reaction to the opposing extreme. Enter identity politics. You could argue that the rally was people fighting identity politics with more identity politics. It doesn’t work.
The only reason “left” is meaningless in the USA is because the USA no longer has one. Thanks partly to the Cold War in which McCarthyism and John Birchers got rid of not just brutal and evil Stalinism and Maoism, but also social-democracy and more moderate forms of socialism. You can see this in the healthcare debates, where the idea of socialized medicine is equated with Communism. You can also see it in the other lot who despise the working class and use snob terms like “white trash” to deride large sections of them. As a result, Alt Right has no effective opposition, and has the potential to galvanize white working class support, since other political movements have failed to protect their interests. The mainstream political movements are run by rich people for rich people and they don’t bother.to hide the fact. Even Libertarianism which pretends to be anti-establishment is bankrolled by big money.
Identity politics has been one of the best stalling tactics available to the right. Not only the far right version but the more centrist version which plays to real issues, but also divides up society into every small combinations so that they fight one another and not the wealthy establishment.
That are astute observations, beefster and Sam – and they are within the parameters of the post. Having said that, let’s not make this thread about politics, generally. Let’s keep it focused on the Church’s statements themselves. If we don’t do that, the thread could spiral away from the post in a hurry.
I think the church has responded to this better than usual. They should have perhaps been more conscious of the wording of the first statement, but they swiftly responded to deal with any misinterpretation, which I respect. Contrast this with the LGBT business which was a botched operation from start to finish, not only with unforeseen consequences, but also came with a messy semi-retraction.
On this issue, they’ve put their foot down and said enough is enough. Given that Africa is probably the main place our church will grow, then I think this is a very wise move in the longer term.
This is not the kind of thing we wish to be associated with, especially considering certain unfortunate aspects of our past. However, in my experience I haven’t found people in my ward anymore racist than the general population although it does occur sometimes.
I respect and appreciate the clarifying comments the Church released, and that they did so partly in response to an outcry of members who showcased the woman’s use of the Church’s first vague statement. In regards to violence and tolerance, the best argument I’ve heard is an essay written by a practicing Jewish man titled “Tolerance Is Not a Moral Precept”. I’ll link it here, but if it violates the terms of the site, please Google the title and read it for yourself. It’s the most convincing exposition on what tolerance actually is and how it is practiced. Some quotes (emphasis mine):
Quote:We have been brought up to believe that tolerating other people is one of the things you do if you’re a nice person — whether we learned this in kindergarten or from Biblical maxims like “love your neighbor as yourself” and “do unto others.” But if you have ever tried to live your life this way, you will have seen it fail: “Why won’t you tolerate my intolerance?” This comes in all sorts of forms: accepting a person’s actively antisocial behavior because it’s just part of being an accepting group of friends; being told that prejudice against Nazis is the same as prejudice against Black people; watching people try to give “equal time” to a religious (or irreligious) group whose guiding principle is that everyone must join them or else.
Every one of these examples should raise your suspicions that something isn’t right; that tolerance be damned, one of these things is not like the other. But if you were raised with an intense version of “tolerance is a moral requirement,” then you may feel that this is a thought you should fight off.
It isn’t.
Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty. Tolerance is a social norm because it allows different people to live side-by-side without being at each other’s throats. It means that we accept that people may be different from us, in their customs, in their behavior, in their dress, in their sex lives, and that if this doesn’t directly affect our lives, it is none of our business. But the model of a peace treaty differs from the model of a moral precept in one simple way: the protection of a peace treaty only extends to those willing to abide by its terms. It is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others.A peace treaty is not a suicide pact.
Quote:This is a variation on the old saw that “your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.”
We often forget (or ignore) that no right is absolute, because one person’s rights can conflict with another’s.This is why freedom of speech doesn’t protect extortion, and the right to bear arms doesn’t license armed robbery. Nor is this limited to rights involving the state; people can interfere with each other’s rights with no government involved, as when people use harassment to suppress other people’s speech. While both sides of that example say they are “exercising their free speech,” one of them is using their speech to prevent the other’s: these are not equivalent. The balance of rights has the structure of a peace treaty.Unlike absolute moral precepts, treaties have remedies for breach.
If one side has breached another’s rights, the injured party is no longer bound to respect the treaty rights of their assailant — and their response is not an identical violation of the rules, even if it looks superficially similar to the original breach.“Mommy, Timmy hit me back!” holds no more ethical weight among adults than it does among children. After a breach, the moral rules which apply are not the rules of peace, but the rules of broken peace, and the rules of war. We might ask, is the response proportional? Is it necessary? Does it serve the larger purpose of restoring the peace? But we do not take an invaded country to task for defending its borders.
I gotta stop or else I’ll quote the whole thing! But seriously, read it.
https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1af7007d6376 ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1af7007d6376 DancingCarrot, Thank you very much for your comment. Every now and then after puzzling over the implications of some concept or label, you stumble upon the precise exposition or definition you were looking for. For me, your comment on tolerance is such a discovery.
Willhewonder wrote:DancingCarrot,
Thank you very much for your comment. Every now and then after puzzling over the implications of some concept or label, you stumble upon the precise exposition or definition you were looking for. For me, your comment on tolerance is such a discovery.
I’m glad! The essay had the same effect on me, so I’m always eager to share it and love when it resonates with others. It seems like tolerance is often used as both plaintiff and defendant, so an exposition like this one is incredibly clarifying.Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.