The problem with Desmond Tutu’s quote:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP’s question makes sense when you realize that everyone thinks that THEY are the victim. The quote only means something in situations where there is a clear oppressor. This happens almost never.

That’s why people fall all over themselves to relate situation X to one of the very few instances of historical clarity (apart, Nazism)- but of course saying “current situation is just another instance of this historically clear injustice!” is demanding that you exchange your own judgment for theirs, and trust them that they are accurately assessing the situation.

Yeah I mean it's not an accident that the examples cited so far in the thread are slavery, apartheid, and Nazis. The quote is applicable in times of injustice. The hard part is determining the injustice, not determining what side you're on.

It's weird that the OP would take the quote so personally given that, which is why I suspect something is going on in OP's life where they are being accused of taking sides on something. I hazarded a guess earlier in the thread that this is about Israel / Palestine.

Black and white thinkers really like these simple issues because they believe they can extrapolate them to other, far more complicated problems. Given that they are using hindsight to determine where the injustice was, is part of the fallacy of their arguments. It's difficult to use hindsight with a current issue.

History is written by the victors.

I don't think that taking a statement that Desmond Tutu made in 1984, the year he won the Nobel Peace Prize for his work fighting Apartheid, in the context of Apartheid, makes someone a black and white thinker. Many of us who were alive in 1984 were able to determine where the injustice was at the time. We didn't need to wait for hindsight.

Desmond Tutu, fighting Apartheid, in the context of Apartheid, was quite literally a black and white thinker.

You’re so clever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP’s question makes sense when you realize that everyone thinks that THEY are the victim. The quote only means something in situations where there is a clear oppressor. This happens almost never.

That’s why people fall all over themselves to relate situation X to one of the very few instances of historical clarity (apart, Nazism)- but of course saying “current situation is just another instance of this historically clear injustice!” is demanding that you exchange your own judgment for theirs, and trust them that they are accurately assessing the situation.

Yeah I mean it's not an accident that the examples cited so far in the thread are slavery, apartheid, and Nazis. The quote is applicable in times of injustice. The hard part is determining the injustice, not determining what side you're on.

It's weird that the OP would take the quote so personally given that, which is why I suspect something is going on in OP's life where they are being accused of taking sides on something. I hazarded a guess earlier in the thread that this is about Israel / Palestine.

Black and white thinkers really like these simple issues because they believe they can extrapolate them to other, far more complicated problems. Given that they are using hindsight to determine where the injustice was, is part of the fallacy of their arguments. It's difficult to use hindsight with a current issue.

History is written by the victors.

I don't think that taking a statement that Desmond Tutu made in 1984, the year he won the Nobel Peace Prize for his work fighting Apartheid, in the context of Apartheid, makes someone a black and white thinker. Many of us who were alive in 1984 were able to determine where the injustice was at the time. We didn't need to wait for hindsight.

And OP or his spiritual ancestor was right there questioning your involvement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I disagree that clear examples of oppression are "rare." It's pretty common actually. If one party has a lot of power and the other doesn't, and the party with all the power is doing violence or restricting the freedom of the party with way less power, that's oppression.

There are situations with nuance if course. I hate to wade into this but Israel/Palestine is an example of a highly complex situation that doesn't clearly break down the way I just described. For starters you have to contend with the fact that Israel views itself as representing the plight of Jews in the world and Jews are historically oppressed. That doesn't justify everything Israel dies but it can explain it and muddy the waters. Then on the other side while you unquestionably have oppression if Palestinian people you also have terrorist violence committed by some Palestinians and supported by others, and terrorism can be viewed as a form of oppression. You also have a lot of racism and hatred in both sides. It doesn't fit a model if oppressed and oppressor.

But just because the most enduring and thorny geopolitical conflict in the world doesn't fit the model doesn't mean it's "rare." Russia-Ukraine is an obvious example of a large and powerful country using its might to try and take over a much smaller, less powerful country. You don't even have to view Russia as unequivocally bad and Ukraine as unequivocally good to conclude that-- the power imbalance is very stark and the oppression ("hello this land is our land and these people are our people now") is very overt.

On a smaller, less life-or-death scale, I see many examples where large corporations try to exploit workers and stomp out unions. Again, it seems obvious to me where the power imbalance is and what actions are "unjust." It is fairly easy for me to pick a side in those instances.

I also don't struggle with siding with kids who are abused by their parents, people who get sexually harassed and assaulted at work, poor people harassed by corrupt police forces, etc. Sometimes it takes time for the facts to come out and you could have instances of someone claiming powerlessness to be manipulative, but where the facts are known it's not that hard to draw conclusions like "Jeffrey Epstein was a bad dude who hurt people and he was supported and abetted by his wealthy friends" or "the LA police department in the 90s had serious problems with corruption and toxicity that led to harassment and injustice in the city." Like these aren't controversial takes.

Yeah, my guess is that the person slinging this quote at OP (could be from either side) believes that it does fit the model and is trying to figure out whether to classify OP as a wrongthinker.

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

I feel like two groups are talking past each other. One group is saying when there is injustice, it's wrong to be silent. The other group is saying it's not always easy to determine injustice.

As a person who has participated in this thread in the first group, I don't disagree with the second point. I just don't think it negates the point of the first group. It's entirely possible for both groups to be right.

I've yet to hear anyone say that it's ALWAYS obvious when injustice is occurring. But I also am not hearing the second group acknowledge that sometimes it IS. It does start to feel like the second group would question if they should speak up against, say, child abuse. I'm sure nobody intends to come across that way but what wirhout that acknowledgement it's starting to feel like it.

[Anonymous]

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.

I feel like two groups are talking past each other. One group is saying when there is injustice, it's wrong to be silent. The other group is saying it's not always easy to determine injustice.

As a person who has participated in this thread in the first group, I don't disagree with the second point. I just don't think it negates the point of the first group. It's entirely possible for both groups to be right.

I've yet to hear anyone say that it's ALWAYS obvious when injustice is occurring. But I also am not hearing the second group acknowledge that sometimes it IS. It does start to feel like the second group would question if they should speak up against, say, child abuse. I'm sure nobody intends to come across that way but what wirhout that acknowledgement it's starting to feel like it.

I would agree with you, but I listed three examples where there is clearly no ambiguity. Sure, sometimes it's not very easy to determine, but a lot of the times it is. It is just easier to sit back and do nothing and call it simplistic moralizing.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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."

[Anonymous]

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."

You seem really really stressed out about what is going on in other people's brains. Be certain they are not concerned that "[you] am tired". Not an urgency or emergency.

[Anonymous]

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."

You seem really really stressed out about what is going on in other people's brains. Be certain they are not concerned that "[you] am tired". Not an urgency or emergency.

It figures that you'd have nothing of actual substance to add to the conversation.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

I feel like two groups are talking past each other. One group is saying when there is injustice, it's wrong to be silent. The other group is saying it's not always easy to determine injustice.

As a person who has participated in this thread in the first group, I don't disagree with the second point. I just don't think it negates the point of the first group. It's entirely possible for both groups to be right.

I've yet to hear anyone say that it's ALWAYS obvious when injustice is occurring. But I also am not hearing the second group acknowledge that sometimes it IS. It does start to feel like the second group would question if they should speak up against, say, child abuse. I'm sure nobody intends to come across that way but what wirhout that acknowledgement it's starting to feel like it.

I would agree with you, but I listed three examples where there is clearly no ambiguity. Sure, sometimes it's not very easy to determine, but a lot of the times it is. It is just easier to sit back and do nothing and call it simplistic moralizing.

What about the US and Hawaii? How about the US and Iraq? Clearly, the US was in the wrong in both cases, because the US is a more powerful, and larger country.

Btw, I wouldn't consider three examples to be a large number of unambiguous cases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.

By this logic, by not choosing team A, team A will tell me I’ve chosen team B. But if I don’t choose team B either, team B will tell me that I’ve chosen team A.

OK, but you're assuming both teams are equal. This quote specifically says it's in time of injustice. So if team A is oppressing team B, it doesn't matter what team A or B think about your choice - your inaction is a tacit approval of the injustice and the oppression, which team A is perpetrating. You're choosing team A because you're choosing status quo, and they control status quo.

This quote is predicated on a known injustice. If you were watching slave owners and slaves, and you remained neutral, you're choosing the side of the slave owners. Surely that feels obvious? I think you're struggling with it because you're applying it to a conflict where you're not sure who has made the injustice (maybe Israel/Palestine, or maybe in projecting?)

It doesn't say known injustice. The quote assumes there is a clear bright line between justice and injustice that can be determined by some wise arbiter.

Really? You can't tell a bright line between the two? Bull Connor turning dogs and fire hoses on protesters seeking the right to vote and you're confused? Again, really?