this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2024
127 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10179 readers
264 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'll use your method, and summarize what I believe your position to be:
END OF LIST (since the markdown lists don't leave any space afterwards)
I think I can see why this is leaving you with no definite threshold for labeling a group as inherently bad, and if I may offer a solution: you need to apply the concept of an Affirmative Defense.
An affirmative defense is a legal concept that occurs when someone admits they have done something wrong, but argues that is was for the right reasons. It then shifts the burden of proof to them, to prove that their reasons made their actions right/ valid (e.g. "yes I shot them, but it was self defense, and here's the proof").
Barring that, it will always be impossible under your system to "call a Nazi a Nazi", because there can always be some hypothetical justification in their minds that you can't know. This plays into your point that you can not truthfully claim certainty for/against God. You cannot claim to know what is in someone's mind.
When it comes to real-world harms, though, that cannot be a valid defense. Otherwise, a person can do anything and simply say, "but you don't know if I had a good reason for it".
When it comes to real-world harms, it is beholden on the wrongdoers to prove that their reasons made their actions acceptable. Anything else will leave you unable to condemn and confront evil.
Putting Trump in power is a real-world harm. I have yet to hear a valid reason for doing it.
Thanks for using my method :) I like your metaphorical court of law.
Your most recent arguments were:
・It’s important that wrong-doers are able to be found guilty.
・The situation plays a role in the severity of the punishment, but that doesn’t change that fact a wrong-doer is guilty. (I think that’s a good description of affirmative defense)
To continue your train of thought: If a person votes for Trump, it’s important that we are able to accuse them of that evil. It’s true that they could have a good reason for doing so, but to assume that would allow evil in general to go unpunished. We have to make a judgment based on the facts we have or we can’t make progress.
After re-reading the conversation from the beginning I want to reword what I believe your core arguments to be:
・Look, people make evil decisions. They are still humans, but we can’t let that prevent us from fighting back. Ultimately, supporting someone who’s legitimately racist is pretty fucked up, you can't deny that.
・If you haven’t heard a good reason to do an evil thing, than don’t assume there is one. This isn’t to say the reason doesn’t exist, but we have to "sentence the defendant" based on the facts we currently know.
I've been convinced. I have to admit that I think I could have seen your point sooner if I wasn’t affected by bias. I think I was falling to the same trap as @Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg because my family is very conservative. It’s difficult to accuse people you care for.
I think that @greg@lemmy.ca and I both had the same gut instinct to defend someone against a seemingly brash insult. Our conversation made me realize that being “nice” in that way is flawed.
(Dark_arc and Greg, I mentioned you because I’m curious to know if you agree with where this argument went, please comment if you feel so inclined).
That being said, you and I never addressed the intercept article specifically. We discussed people who are not racist but still vote for trump. The article discusses people who are racist themselves. I'm willing to leave the conversation here, because I don't think the article is very useful in itself.
One point to clarify wrt affirmative defense is that if the argument is made successfully, they would not be guilty of a crime, as in that case the action that would normally be a crime is not.
If someone can present a reason that voting for Trump is actually better than not, I'm all ears, but it would be a high bar to clear.