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.

So, if someone is winning, there must be injustice and we should oppose it until the other side is winning. Which would be injustice, because someone is winning. So we help the other side, now the other side is winning, so there must be injustice. So we need to help the other side...

Do you need me to buy you a dictionary?!

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.

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.

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.

Apartheid started in 1948. After 36 years, you weren't using hindsight?

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.

According to several PP, there is an absolute morality that can be used.

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.

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

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.

This is true, and I was also there. But people wildly overestimate how many cases of moral clarity there actually are, and of course always completely convinced that they themselves are 100% correct in determining who the oppressed is and who the oppressor is. This quote is generally used as a cudgel to try to force agreement with the quoter’s own assessment of who the oppressor is in a situation.

In the real world, someone who hasn’t taken sides between the Star-Bellied Sneeches and the Plaiin-Bellied Sneeches either

1) is intelligent enough to realize that it’s not clear which set of Sneeches is being subjected to injustice, but also is not interested in investigating for themselves extensively enough to draw their own conclusion;

2) has a perfectly clear idea of which set of Sneeches they think is in the right, but is aware that the other person doesn’t share their opinion and has zero desire to argue about the situation.

I mean, it really comes down to AGREE WITH ME OR YOU’RE A BADDIE. Some people just desperately don’t want to have discussions with people who see things in black and white, particularly if they think it will make their home, workplace, or neighborhood a more unpleasant place to be.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The rest of the quote says "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality."

I am pretty sure it was in the context of apartheid in South Africa but I'm not positive about that. The quote does assume that you can determine an injustice. You can take issue with that element, I suppose. I think some situations are pretty obvious (are you neutral on apartheid, for example? And if you are, wouldn't it have been reasonable to then assume that meant you supported the actions of the Dutch? They had all the power in the situation and therefore the status quo.)

The elephant is standing on the tail of the mouse to keep it from running over the edge of a cliff. Simple, yeah?

OK, and... What if it wasn't? What if the elephant is just being a dlck because he can? Is it really so hard to imagine a scenario where there is a clear injustice? This quote doesn't apply to EVERY scenario, it applies to some.

If this quote triggers you so much, I think it might be exposing something about your own internal feelings. You clearly feel like you are being made out to feel like the bad guy because of your unwillingness to take sides in some conflict.

My point is that you can't judge a situation from a single viewpoint. Who has perfect knowledge from which to judge the amount of injustice?

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The rest of the quote says "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality."

I am pretty sure it was in the context of apartheid in South Africa but I'm not positive about that. The quote does assume that you can determine an injustice. You can take issue with that element, I suppose. I think some situations are pretty obvious (are you neutral on apartheid, for example? And if you are, wouldn't it have been reasonable to then assume that meant you supported the actions of the Dutch? They had all the power in the situation and therefore the status quo.)

The elephant is standing on the tail of the mouse to keep it from running over the edge of a cliff. Simple, yeah?

OK, and... What if it wasn't? What if the elephant is just being a dlck because he can? Is it really so hard to imagine a scenario where there is a clear injustice? This quote doesn't apply to EVERY scenario, it applies to some.

If this quote triggers you so much, I think it might be exposing something about your own internal feelings. You clearly feel like you are being made out to feel like the bad guy because of your unwillingness to take sides in some conflict.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The rest of the quote says "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality."

I am pretty sure it was in the context of apartheid in South Africa but I'm not positive about that. The quote does assume that you can determine an injustice. You can take issue with that element, I suppose. I think some situations are pretty obvious (are you neutral on apartheid, for example? And if you are, wouldn't it have been reasonable to then assume that meant you supported the actions of the Dutch? They had all the power in the situation and therefore the status quo.)

The elephant is standing on the tail of the mouse to keep it from running over the edge of a cliff. Simple, yeah?

White man's burden. Apartheid was for their own good? I guess you can still make that argument in 2024