There’s truth to it. Some things are right at a time or for a perspective but not right to us. Humans are complex. We don’t even need to discuss history- we have enough trouble figuring out who is or isn’t an asshole or whatever day go day. Who is all “bad” or “good”? Who has no one who dislikes them?
So sure. But there is also a question of purpose. Why are we judging this person? To what end?
So, real world example- you and your ex have a kid and your ex sleeps around/dates different people pretty frequently. Not something we can or should really judge someone else for- their life their choice. I’m sure the people they sleep with probably think it’s a good trait and maybe people who worry about them or want a monogamous uncomplicated relationship with them think it’s bad etc. So do them right? Who are we to judge. Except… what about the kid? It’s is the general consensus that having a parent who brings home “musical partners” all the time is generally harmful to a child right?
So maybe you don’t need to judge them but you do need to judge their behavior? Maybe all their friends and/or family belong to a belief system- a religion/cult or they are all very “free” with boundaries and sexuality and partners or they hood certain values and maybe that person- your brother or friend or cousin or ex or the kids grandparents etc- maybe they have some things about them that are fine to them, they are fine among their Ike minded peers- maybe your uncle the heroin addict shouldn’t be judged by the standards of our time or your personal standards and maybe his junkie pals and his dealer think he’s doing nothing wrong- but maybe you don’t want him yo be a role model or a hero?
Maybe he’s a functioning junkie and he is very musical. The kids live him. They sing together. He taught them their ABC’s and tutored them to pass math. He’s not total trash right? He has this one “tiny” thing- right? So maybe you don’t need to judge him and teach your kids to hate that person- but maybe you DO need to talk about their behavior from the lens of your values and such instead of using the values of their peers who all think it is 1976 and think heroine is great?
That’s one example.any more. Be creative. The point is that people can have things that align to our values and things that don’t. While there is room for live and let live, sometimes we do need to stop and discuss things.
Now- adults aren’t kids” even if many display the mental capacity and reasoning of kids at least circumstantially, every election cycle preschool teachers across the nation see the sorts of tantrums and name calling and sociopath like lack of empathy that must seem familiar for example- but adults aren’t kids. So then it is societies job to remove that statue of the former slave owner because it sets a bad example? Maybe. Maybe not. Regardless, if we approach it as “it is up to adults to inform themselves and decide if they want this statue or not…” well… yeah. If they want it, OR NOT. The snake eats its own tail. If it is up to people to decide for themselves who is good or bad, then you have to believe in “cancelation.” If you don’t believe in it then you support someone building a giant statue celebrating Osama bin Laden near ground zero. There is a man who in his place and time is not a strict villain.
The Taliban seemed to regard him well. Many various civilians liked him and the Taliban. Hitler of course, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc etc. no one is universally hated or loved. So then roll out the statues right? Nothing wrong with a big old statues glorifying Hitler because people can decide what they think about the man right? That seems a bit daft unless perhaps you are a Nazi sympathizer or something. Osama Bin Laden was a terrorist responsible for a large number of deaths and suffering through the violence he employed against the United States for example, in what was ultimately a quest to create and strengthen his government and ideology. Like a Confederate General. You don’t think Osama didn’t have friends? The Taliban never taught anyone to read or build things or helped people?
If you defend the confederate battle flag on cars and clothes and federal buildings and say it is more complex than a symbol of hate or treason then you’d either defend the Taliban colors hanging next to it or you are a hypocrite and have proven to yourself you are misguided. A terrorist “freedom fighter” is a terrorist freedom fighter. Supporting such means you don’t condone terrorism, you merely only condone it when you support the cause of terrorists or oppose their victims.
So that is the divide. People are nuanced. History is nuanced. We also can’t and I argue shouldn't pretend that whatever our own values are don’t exist when we talk about someone from outside our values systems. That itself is nuanced. Where do you draw a line? In some countries it is legal or even common to marry children- so do we just say that is ok because who are we to judge others by our values? Isn’t that what laws are- a set of comunal values that generally don’t reflect everyone but are the
“Common sense” we impose on others? Of course that is relative. How can someone say that it is ok to criminalize one behavior and not another? How can we point to one thing as causing social harm and call it bad or forbidden if we believe it is up to adults to decide- and then point to something someone else says harms society and say no- that’s a good thing?
Person A says that we shouldn’t legalize all drugs and remove any age or other restrictions on drugs being sold anywhere to anyone because it is up to adults to make those decisions based on their critical thinking and beliefs. Person B says that most drugs should be restricted because they cause social harm. Who is right? Ok. Now person B says we should enact strong laws to keep kids from being exposed to LGBTQ education or exposure- “don’t say gay bills” and bathroom restrictions and banning drag story time and LGBTQ education or depictions/interactions with or around kids or in public etc etc. person A says that we should allow it all and let parents and kids reconcile that to their wishes and values. Who is right?
Ok so now say person A and B meet. Person A believes in not legalizing all drugs and “open LGBTQ+.” Person B believes that we should legalize all drugs but “ban” LGBTQ+.
Both want to “ban” certain things they think are socially harmful and both want to allow certain things under the theory that people are smart and should be presented the world as it is and it is up to them to figure out how to navigate it.
Both are likely to not support one of the others major beliefs though. Hard to reconcile that isn’t it? The logic isn’t really there. We can argue why one is true or not etc. but from each of their perspectives they are right and regardless of the details they both have internally inconsistent beliefs because… those beliefs are most likely window dressing for their biases. You can tell person A or B they are wrong and even show them data but if A or B are much like the average person, that won’t change their minds because it isn’t actually about that,
Person A and B are biased and they are biased in opposing ways but neither is likely to budge for the sake of not being a hypocrite because they believe they are doing right. The point not being about what I do or do not support personally- the point is that we all have things that we assume should be human rights that if someone tries to argue shouldn’t we will dismiss them; and we all have things that regardless of the argument or our own views on other subjects that can be applied to a different topic, our personal bias is going to seem like the obvious answer or be the bulwarks that we usually won’t back down from.
So sure. But there is also a question of purpose. Why are we judging this person? To what end?
So, real world example- you and your ex have a kid and your ex sleeps around/dates different people pretty frequently. Not something we can or should really judge someone else for- their life their choice. I’m sure the people they sleep with probably think it’s a good trait and maybe people who worry about them or want a monogamous uncomplicated relationship with them think it’s bad etc. So do them right? Who are we to judge. Except… what about the kid? It’s is the general consensus that having a parent who brings home “musical partners” all the time is generally harmful to a child right?
That’s one example.any more. Be creative. The point is that people can have things that align to our values and things that don’t. While there is room for live and let live, sometimes we do need to stop and discuss things.
So that is the divide. People are nuanced. History is nuanced. We also can’t and I argue shouldn't pretend that whatever our own values are don’t exist when we talk about someone from outside our values systems. That itself is nuanced. Where do you draw a line? In some countries it is legal or even common to marry children- so do we just say that is ok because who are we to judge others by our values? Isn’t that what laws are- a set of comunal values that generally don’t reflect everyone but are the
Both want to “ban” certain things they think are socially harmful and both want to allow certain things under the theory that people are smart and should be presented the world as it is and it is up to them to figure out how to navigate it.
Both are likely to not support one of the others major beliefs though. Hard to reconcile that isn’t it? The logic isn’t really there. We can argue why one is true or not etc. but from each of their perspectives they are right and regardless of the details they both have internally inconsistent beliefs because… those beliefs are most likely window dressing for their biases. You can tell person A or B they are wrong and even show them data but if A or B are much like the average person, that won’t change their minds because it isn’t actually about that,