The problem with Desmond Tutu’s quote:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am so glad that there are still people in this world who can see and determine for themselves that some things are clearly unjust and need to stop. In this age of whataboutism and people with no moral compass, I can see why OP is struggling with Tutu's quote.

1) was the holocaust something we should have stopped OP?
2) was slavery something that should have been abolished?
3) if you see a man, beating his wife and her unable to defend herself because he is twice her size, do you ask yourself what she did to provoke him?

This is exactly the simplistic moralizing that causes people like OP to not want to engage with you.

Simplistic moralizing? Explain EXACTLY what you mean by that and what should have been done instead in each example.

EXACTLY what I mean is that those examples are clearly wrong, but there are many examples that people will assertively tell you are omg just like the Holocaust, slavery, apartheid, abuse, etc.

And they either are not the same at all or at least aren’t clearly so. And arguing with people who have a, yes, simplistic view is exhausting and annoying and I can see why someone would want to avoid doing it and thus avoid “picking a side” and then be accused of “siding with the oppressors!!” for refusing to validate histrionic oversimplifications.

So then list some of those ambiguous examples instead of telling me how wrong I am for pointing out that there are times in history when it's clear as day. That is what Tutu was talking about.

It is not my fault you have no moral compass and gumption and can't or won't discern when something is clearly wrong. I am tired of people who are puposefuly obtuse and want to "both sides" everything." Sure, sometimes, perhaps even lots of the time things are not black and white. But that's not what Tutu was talking about so stop hiding behind phrases like "simplistic moralizing."

Friend, no one is saying that there is no such thing as clearcut moral situations ever. But no, I sure am not going to trot out examples so you can explain to me how in your opinion this ambiguous example is not in fact ambiguous, which you had insight into because you have drunk the Righteousness Juice.

If you are one of these charming people who harangue those who tell you they are not taking sides on a particular issue, you might want to check yourself. Accept that not everyone is open to hearing your message, and that not everyone is going to agree with you, and no one owes you discussion. If someone says “I am neutral on this issue” then respect them and don’t talk to them about it.

And if you are convinced in your bones that whatever is OMG just like apartheid/the Holocaust/slavery etc then I’m sure you can find plenty of validation by people who will exactly agree with you. And this is maybe why nobody outside that bubble wants to talk to you.

You are just prattling on because you have no moral compass and get triggered when people bring up clear examples of what Tutu was talking about. I didn't bring up situations that were unclear. I brought up clear-cut examples and that is what you objected to and called "simplistic moralizing." There are times in history (and yes, current events) that call for us to take action and not turn our heads the other way. By choosing to ignore the injustice, we are allowing it to continue to exist. The fact that you got offended by Tutu's quote is very telling of the kind of person you are: a coward.

NP

Pray tell, what actions are you taking on what issues, exactly?

Listen, moron, I am a genocide survivor. I hate to mention it because idiots like you will demean it and minimize it. It was clear-cut in 1995 when over 8000 men and boys were slaughtered in Srebrenica that the world should intervene and stop the atrocities. I'm glad that people who are better than you had the gumption and the empathy to save my life and lives of many others.

I was 12. Sorry for what you went through, but what do you think I should have done to intervene?

And you obviously avoided answering the very simple question of what actions are YOU (personally) taking on what issues? Anyone can command some nebulous royal you to *do something*, but talk is cheap.

That PP is so obviously talking about Gaza. People who believe what Israel is doing is genocide believe it in all of their being, despite that it doesn't fit the criteria of the CPPCG. But it's weird that the PP won't just say what they're referring to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am so glad that there are still people in this world who can see and determine for themselves that some things are clearly unjust and need to stop. In this age of whataboutism and people with no moral compass, I can see why OP is struggling with Tutu's quote.

1) was the holocaust something we should have stopped OP?
2) was slavery something that should have been abolished?
3) if you see a man, beating his wife and her unable to defend herself because he is twice her size, do you ask yourself what she did to provoke him?

This is exactly the simplistic moralizing that causes people like OP to not want to engage with you.

Simplistic moralizing? Explain EXACTLY what you mean by that and what should have been done instead in each example.

EXACTLY what I mean is that those examples are clearly wrong, but there are many examples that people will assertively tell you are omg just like the Holocaust, slavery, apartheid, abuse, etc.

And they either are not the same at all or at least aren’t clearly so. And arguing with people who have a, yes, simplistic view is exhausting and annoying and I can see why someone would want to avoid doing it and thus avoid “picking a side” and then be accused of “siding with the oppressors!!” for refusing to validate histrionic oversimplifications.

So then list some of those ambiguous examples instead of telling me how wrong I am for pointing out that there are times in history when it's clear as day. That is what Tutu was talking about.

It is not my fault you have no moral compass and gumption and can't or won't discern when something is clearly wrong. I am tired of people who are puposefuly obtuse and want to "both sides" everything." Sure, sometimes, perhaps even lots of the time things are not black and white. But that's not what Tutu was talking about so stop hiding behind phrases like "simplistic moralizing."

Friend, no one is saying that there is no such thing as clearcut moral situations ever. But no, I sure am not going to trot out examples so you can explain to me how in your opinion this ambiguous example is not in fact ambiguous, which you had insight into because you have drunk the Righteousness Juice.

If you are one of these charming people who harangue those who tell you they are not taking sides on a particular issue, you might want to check yourself. Accept that not everyone is open to hearing your message, and that not everyone is going to agree with you, and no one owes you discussion. If someone says “I am neutral on this issue” then respect them and don’t talk to them about it.

And if you are convinced in your bones that whatever is OMG just like apartheid/the Holocaust/slavery etc then I’m sure you can find plenty of validation by people who will exactly agree with you. And this is maybe why nobody outside that bubble wants to talk to you.

You are just prattling on because you have no moral compass and get triggered when people bring up clear examples of what Tutu was talking about. I didn't bring up situations that were unclear. I brought up clear-cut examples and that is what you objected to and called "simplistic moralizing." There are times in history (and yes, current events) that call for us to take action and not turn our heads the other way. By choosing to ignore the injustice, we are allowing it to continue to exist. The fact that you got offended by Tutu's quote is very telling of the kind of person you are: a coward.

NP

Pray tell, what actions are you taking on what issues, exactly?

Listen, moron, I am a genocide survivor. I hate to mention it because idiots like you will demean it and minimize it. It was clear-cut in 1995 when over 8000 men and boys were slaughtered in Srebrenica that the world should intervene and stop the atrocities. I'm glad that people who are better than you had the gumption and the empathy to save my life and lives of many others.

I was 12. Sorry for what you went through, but what do you think I should have done to intervene?

And you obviously avoided answering the very simple question of what actions are YOU (personally) taking on what issues? Anyone can command some nebulous royal you to *do something*, but talk is cheap.

That PP is so obviously talking about Gaza. People who believe what Israel is doing is genocide believe it in all of their being, despite that it doesn't fit the criteria of the CPPCG. But it's weird that the PP won't just say what they're referring to.

Because they are trying to back everyone into a corner but it is not going to work. You can't trick people into advocacy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s not complicated.

Neutrality is acceptance for whoever is winning, whatever is happening. It’s terrifying to see an adult not understanding this.

Yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not complicated.

Neutrality is acceptance for whoever is winning, whatever is happening. It’s terrifying to see an adult not understanding this.

Yes.

Neutrality is too strong of a word. What is a word to convey, I just don’t think about the issue, or, that what is going on is an occurrence, one of billions in the world, not something I need to elevate to issue? That is how I feel about what you tell me I need to focus on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am so glad that there are still people in this world who can see and determine for themselves that some things are clearly unjust and need to stop. In this age of whataboutism and people with no moral compass, I can see why OP is struggling with Tutu's quote.

1) was the holocaust something we should have stopped OP?
2) was slavery something that should have been abolished?
3) if you see a man, beating his wife and her unable to defend herself because he is twice her size, do you ask yourself what she did to provoke him?

This is exactly the simplistic moralizing that causes people like OP to not want to engage with you.

Simplistic moralizing? Explain EXACTLY what you mean by that and what should have been done instead in each example.

EXACTLY what I mean is that those examples are clearly wrong, but there are many examples that people will assertively tell you are omg just like the Holocaust, slavery, apartheid, abuse, etc.

And they either are not the same at all or at least aren’t clearly so. And arguing with people who have a, yes, simplistic view is exhausting and annoying and I can see why someone would want to avoid doing it and thus avoid “picking a side” and then be accused of “siding with the oppressors!!” for refusing to validate histrionic oversimplifications.

So then list some of those ambiguous examples instead of telling me how wrong I am for pointing out that there are times in history when it's clear as day. That is what Tutu was talking about.

It is not my fault you have no moral compass and gumption and can't or won't discern when something is clearly wrong. I am tired of people who are puposefuly obtuse and want to "both sides" everything." Sure, sometimes, perhaps even lots of the time things are not black and white. But that's not what Tutu was talking about so stop hiding behind phrases like "simplistic moralizing."

Friend, no one is saying that there is no such thing as clearcut moral situations ever. But no, I sure am not going to trot out examples so you can explain to me how in your opinion this ambiguous example is not in fact ambiguous, which you had insight into because you have drunk the Righteousness Juice.

If you are one of these charming people who harangue those who tell you they are not taking sides on a particular issue, you might want to check yourself. Accept that not everyone is open to hearing your message, and that not everyone is going to agree with you, and no one owes you discussion. If someone says “I am neutral on this issue” then respect them and don’t talk to them about it.

And if you are convinced in your bones that whatever is OMG just like apartheid/the Holocaust/slavery etc then I’m sure you can find plenty of validation by people who will exactly agree with you. And this is maybe why nobody outside that bubble wants to talk to you.

You are just prattling on because you have no moral compass and get triggered when people bring up clear examples of what Tutu was talking about. I didn't bring up situations that were unclear. I brought up clear-cut examples and that is what you objected to and called "simplistic moralizing." There are times in history (and yes, current events) that call for us to take action and not turn our heads the other way. By choosing to ignore the injustice, we are allowing it to continue to exist. The fact that you got offended by Tutu's quote is very telling of the kind of person you are: a coward.

NP

Pray tell, what actions are you taking on what issues, exactly?

Listen, moron, I am a genocide survivor. I hate to mention it because idiots like you will demean it and minimize it. It was clear-cut in 1995 when over 8000 men and boys were slaughtered in Srebrenica that the world should intervene and stop the atrocities. I'm glad that people who are better than you had the gumption and the empathy to save my life and lives of many others.

I was 12. Sorry for what you went through, but what do you think I should have done to intervene?

And you obviously avoided answering the very simple question of what actions are YOU (personally) taking on what issues? Anyone can command some nebulous royal you to *do something*, but talk is cheap.

That PP is so obviously talking about Gaza. People who believe what Israel is doing is genocide believe it in all of their being, despite that it doesn't fit the criteria of the CPPCG. But it's weird that the PP won't just say what they're referring to.

I can see why not — mention Israel or Gaza and the thread dissolves in unholy chaos in 3… 2… 1…

But yes, I do think it’s likely that it’s what led OP to this post. There’s been some really dark rhetoric going around about how, basically, “If you don’t publicly declare X, we will assume that you believe Y, and Y will not be tolerated in our community. Watch out.” I’m paraphrasing, but not by very much, and it’s chilling. Thus my energy here to advocate for people being allowed to not declare an opinion.

It’s scary out there.

[Anonymous]

I reject the entire premise of having to pick sides. “You’re either with us or against a us” is a manipulation tactic used to coerce people into risking their life and safety through social pressure and threats. Nazis used that kind of rhetoric.

One thing I know for sure is that true friends and people who care about you do not use threats and manipulation to coerce you to take actions that they want you to take. It’s an obvious red flag. That’s how I know that it’s wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I reject the entire premise of having to pick sides. “You’re either with us or against a us” is a manipulation tactic used to coerce people into risking their life and safety through social pressure and threats. Nazis used that kind of rhetoric.

One thing I know for sure is that true friends and people who care about you do not use threats and manipulation to coerce you to take actions that they want you to take. It’s an obvious red flag. That’s how I know that it’s wrong.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I reject the entire premise of having to pick sides. “You’re either with us or against a us” is a manipulation tactic used to coerce people into risking their life and safety through social pressure and threats. Nazis used that kind of rhetoric.

One thing I know for sure is that true friends and people who care about you do not use threats and manipulation to coerce you to take actions that they want you to take. It’s an obvious red flag. That’s how I know that it’s wrong.

+1