It’s important to recognize that when you equate two countries, you tacitly support the dominant narrative. Saying “ABC Bad and XYZ Bad” without doing work to contextualize the extent, impact, and level of “Badness” serves to exaggerate the evils of the “less bad” and understate the evils of the “more bad.” Condemning equally is therefore an unequal condemnation for unequal evils.
See, that’s the issue.
Pointing at state A and saying it’s bad invokes the response “Well B is by far more bad, if you look at contextualized extent, impact, and level of badness!” thus down playing the bad state A has done.
It’s like, A hit X with a fist, but B hit Y with a bat, twice and on the shins, so what A did isn’t so bad actually. Instead of just admitting hitting is wrong.
Bad actions have different intensities and scales. Such equal condemnation for unequal evil leads to people who refuse to take a Pro-Palestinian stance, which implicitly sides with Israel as the stronger force.
The whole point is to condemn evil whatever the intensity, scale or who is responsible.
But somehow it always comes to a comparison of evilness (obviously always the US) which somehow excuses (mostly Chinese or Russian) atrocities. And that is the issue.
I just showed you the consequence of your framing, correct? The goal isn’t to excuse anything, but to come to correct conclusions. Your line of thinking supports the genocide of Palestinians, because it becomes a toothless “both sides bad,” resulting in “continue the course.” It’s the equivalent of coming out and saying “cancer is bad,” it doesn’t change anything.
It’s important to recognize that when you equate two countries, you tacitly support the dominant narrative. Saying “ABC Bad and XYZ Bad” without doing work to contextualize the extent, impact, and level of “Badness” serves to exaggerate the evils of the “less bad” and understate the evils of the “more bad.” Condemning equally is therefore an unequal condemnation for unequal evils.
See, that’s the issue.
Pointing at state A and saying it’s bad invokes the response “Well B is by far more bad, if you look at contextualized extent, impact, and level of badness!” thus down playing the bad state A has done.
It’s like, A hit X with a fist, but B hit Y with a bat, twice and on the shins, so what A did isn’t so bad actually. Instead of just admitting hitting is wrong.
It’s best to correctly contextualize all bad. Simply saying X is bad if one country does .5X and another does 2X equalizes each into merely “X.”
Exactly! :)
My point is that that is bad, it obscures reality and leads to incorrect conclusions.
Incorrect conclusions about bad actions being bad no matter who does it?
Bad actions have different intensities and scales. Such equal condemnation for unequal evil leads to people who refuse to take a Pro-Palestinian stance, which implicitly sides with Israel as the stronger force.
The whole point is to condemn evil whatever the intensity, scale or who is responsible.
But somehow it always comes to a comparison of evilness (obviously always the US) which somehow excuses (mostly Chinese or Russian) atrocities. And that is the issue.
I just showed you the consequence of your framing, correct? The goal isn’t to excuse anything, but to come to correct conclusions. Your line of thinking supports the genocide of Palestinians, because it becomes a toothless “both sides bad,” resulting in “continue the course.” It’s the equivalent of coming out and saying “cancer is bad,” it doesn’t change anything.