The problem with Desmond Tutu’s quote:

[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?

I don't understand your point. The Allied armies DID stop the Holocaust. It took years, and the loss of thousands of American lives, but it was stopped. People who say that the U.S., including FDR, did not do enough, soon enough, don't understand how close the Nazi's came to victory in WW II.

The American people DID abolish slavery. At the cost of thousands of American lives in a Civil War. Slavery was abolished by the 13th Amendment. (I might add that slavery exists in many parts of the world today, mainly in the middle east. What do you propose to do about it?)

[Anonymous]

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.

lol. No, I didn’t call you a simplistic moralizer for saying that those examples are bad. Literally everybody agrees those are injust. I called you simplistic moralizer for trotting out those examples and saying that OP’s abstaining on something that is clearly actually none of those things is a moral equivalent, and refusing to accept that other people might see things differently.

But no fear, simplistic morality is cheap and you can easily find plenty of people to cheer you on for screaming that whatever is the same as apartheid/Nazism. Nitrogen and outrage are the most common substances in the universe.

You are just pissing in the wind at this point. OP was confused about what Tutu meant and I explained it. There are times in history when we must act. Never did I say that there is never any ambiguity, or gray area, but there are times when there is absolutely a wrong and a right. Really not sure what point you are trying to make since I said none of the things you are accusing me of. You are the only one comparing my examples to anything else. You are the one screaming those things, not me.

[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?

I don't understand your point. The Allied armies DID stop the Holocaust. It took years, and the loss of thousands of American lives, but it was stopped. People who say that the U.S., including FDR, did not do enough, soon enough, don't understand how close the Nazi's came to victory in WW II.

The American people DID abolish slavery. At the cost of thousands of American lives in a Civil War. Slavery was abolished by the 13th Amendment. (I might add that slavery exists in many parts of the world today, mainly in the middle east. What do you propose to do about it?)

DP. According to those who believe we must speak out against injustice, we must speak out. Maybe even go fight a war over there that costs thousands of American lives, thus proving our morality by doing the right thing rather than just speaking platitudes.

[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?

I don't understand your point. The Allied armies DID stop the Holocaust. It took years, and the loss of thousands of American lives, but it was stopped. People who say that the U.S., including FDR, did not do enough, soon enough, don't understand how close the Nazi's came to victory in WW II.

The American people DID abolish slavery. At the cost of thousands of American lives in a Civil War. Slavery was abolished by the 13th Amendment. (I might add that slavery exists in many parts of the world today, mainly in the middle east. What do you propose to do about it?)

The point was that the US intervened in WWII because it was the right thing to do, where there was a clear oppressor and a clear victim. Slavery was abolished after a bloody war that no one had the appetite for but it was absolutely the right thing to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op stop being a wimp… tell us the exact issue you think is not clear.

God, please don’t. Demanding that OP lay out the issue so you can apply your personal moral lens to it is exactly what this rather interesting thread doesn’t need.

Why not? You cant comfortably defend your moral stance? What are you afraid of?

[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?

I don't understand your point. The Allied armies DID stop the Holocaust. It took years, and the loss of thousands of American lives, but it was stopped. People who say that the U.S., including FDR, did not do enough, soon enough, don't understand how close the Nazi's came to victory in WW II.

The American people DID abolish slavery. At the cost of thousands of American lives in a Civil War. Slavery was abolished by the 13th Amendment. (I might add that slavery exists in many parts of the world today, mainly in the middle east. What do you propose to do about it?)

The point was that the US intervened in WWII because it was the right thing to do, where there was a clear oppressor and a clear victim. Slavery was abolished after a bloody war that no one had the appetite for but it was absolutely the right thing to do.

Huh? No, the US intervened out of self-interest, after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. We did not join WW2 to stop the Holocaust or because oppressors were oppressing the oppressed. Nor should we have, that would be unjustifiable.

[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?

I don't understand your point. The Allied armies DID stop the Holocaust. It took years, and the loss of thousands of American lives, but it was stopped. People who say that the U.S., including FDR, did not do enough, soon enough, don't understand how close the Nazi's came to victory in WW II.

The American people DID abolish slavery. At the cost of thousands of American lives in a Civil War. Slavery was abolished by the 13th Amendment. (I might add that slavery exists in many parts of the world today, mainly in the middle east. What do you propose to do about it?)

DP. According to those who believe we must speak out against injustice, we must speak out. Maybe even go fight a war over there that costs thousands of American lives, thus proving our morality by doing the right thing rather than just speaking platitudes.

Yes, their outrage at "not speaking out" really is an outrage that we are not suffering like those who they think are oppressed. How dare we live our happy lived when so and so is suffering? They demand a sacrificial offering of some sort. This is why they celebrated that young Airman who set himself on fire a few months ago.

[Anonymous]

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."

Brexit comes to mind.

That makes no sense at all. They held the election and got out. No one was oppressed.

They imagined themselves oppressed and then voted against their own goals.

[Anonymous]

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?

[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?

I don't understand your point. The Allied armies DID stop the Holocaust. It took years, and the loss of thousands of American lives, but it was stopped. People who say that the U.S., including FDR, did not do enough, soon enough, don't understand how close the Nazi's came to victory in WW II.

The American people DID abolish slavery. At the cost of thousands of American lives in a Civil War. Slavery was abolished by the 13th Amendment. (I might add that slavery exists in many parts of the world today, mainly in the middle east. What do you propose to do about it?)

DP. According to those who believe we must speak out against injustice, we must speak out. Maybe even go fight a war over there that costs thousands of American lives, thus proving our morality by doing the right thing rather than just speaking platitudes.

Yes, their outrage at "not speaking out" really is an outrage that we are not suffering like those who they think are oppressed. How dare we live our happy lived when so and so is suffering? They demand a sacrificial offering of some sort. This is why they celebrated that young Airman who set himself on fire a few months ago.

Some of us are capable of empathy and humanity. I know it's hard for you to understand since you lack both.

[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?

I don't understand your point. The Allied armies DID stop the Holocaust. It took years, and the loss of thousands of American lives, but it was stopped. People who say that the U.S., including FDR, did not do enough, soon enough, don't understand how close the Nazi's came to victory in WW II.

The American people DID abolish slavery. At the cost of thousands of American lives in a Civil War. Slavery was abolished by the 13th Amendment. (I might add that slavery exists in many parts of the world today, mainly in the middle east. What do you propose to do about it?)

The point was that the US intervened in WWII because it was the right thing to do, where there was a clear oppressor and a clear victim. Slavery was abolished after a bloody war that no one had the appetite for but it was absolutely the right thing to do.

Huh? No, the US intervened out of self-interest, after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. We did not join WW2 to stop the Holocaust or because oppressors were oppressing the oppressed. Nor should we have, that would be unjustifiable.

Mmm yes, the evil German bombing of Pearl Harbor in December 1941, which prompted the USA to support the Allied war effort with Lend-Lease in March 1941.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

I don't understand why so many people can simultaneously argue that both that Nazism was not a big deal and people shouldn't be bothered about it, and also it's offensive to say that so-and-so is like Nazism.

[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?

I don't understand your point. The Allied armies DID stop the Holocaust. It took years, and the loss of thousands of American lives, but it was stopped. People who say that the U.S., including FDR, did not do enough, soon enough, don't understand how close the Nazi's came to victory in WW II.

The American people DID abolish slavery. At the cost of thousands of American lives in a Civil War. Slavery was abolished by the 13th Amendment. (I might add that slavery exists in many parts of the world today, mainly in the middle east. What do you propose to do about it?)

DP. According to those who believe we must speak out against injustice, we must speak out. Maybe even go fight a war over there that costs thousands of American lives, thus proving our morality by doing the right thing rather than just speaking platitudes.

Yes, their outrage at "not speaking out" really is an outrage that we are not suffering like those who they think are oppressed. How dare we live our happy lived when so and so is suffering? They demand a sacrificial offering of some sort. This is why they celebrated that young Airman who set himself on fire a few months ago.

Some of us are capable of empathy and humanity. I know it's hard for you to understand since you lack both.

We just don't care. Some of us don't police thoughts and feelings and don't want ours policed. I don't want you studying my social media account or water cooler chats at work then judging vocally of I am "concerned" enough about your pet cause.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why so many people can simultaneously argue that both that Nazism was not a big deal and people shouldn't be bothered about it, and also it's offensive to say that so-and-so is like Nazism.

Where on earth is anyone arguing that not Nazism is not a big deal?