The only big disagreement I have with the thread in general, is the belief that people should be compelled to apologice for present or past actions as if the spectators "us" were owed something.
An apology or proof of having overcome past shortcomings is in the interest of the public figure, to retain good will from the audience/voters, or for a personal process of closure.
Its pretty awkard to see all this mob justice claiming who should or shouldnt apologice and all this scales of who is salvageable and who isnt.
Yes, with a quick verbal "boom." You take a man's peko, you deny him his dab, all that is left is to rise up and tear down the walls of Jericho with a ".....not!" -TexiKen
An apology is not merely for the candidate. It also lets their constituents know that they understand the circumstances of the action and why it should not have been done
This is valuable to voters to know whether or not a past action is indicative of future actions or not. Even if they dont believe it in their heart of hearts so long as they know that its unacceptable to do and follow through in doing those things it doesnt matter
Yes, an apology serves the interests of a politician... but only because it seeves the interests of the public to inform them about the actions of the politician
+1
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
I don't consider them unobtainable either, at least, in most cases
but when I hear this narrative I start getting a super sketchy feeling, because it usually means someone's about to try and rationalize away a marginalized person's opinion because it doesn't fit an easy narrative
if I saw a room full of cis folk agreeing that we need to forgive someone's past transphobic actions I'd be making this face:
I don't think some conversations that should happen at all, depending on who's doing the talking
On the subject of the bolded
Let's say Individual X actually did do transphobic actions/thoughts/whatever many moons ago, because of whatever reason (probably trans representation for the last couple decades at the very least has been horrid).
Now X meets an actual trans person, say, 10 years ago. And it changes their entire outlook, and indeed their actions, because ignorance cultural norms were and largely still are horseshit. And further, let's say that meeting of that person bleeds over into what they push publicly.
This is a pretty common thing that's happened as cultural norms in the US (at least) have been absolutely shattered when it turns out that most of them were utter shit.
Does this person get their ignorant/cultural norm behavior from the 1990's looked at as a relic of the past and the actions of the ignorant?
I have said before in this thread that forgiveness and judgment of atonement being achieved is in the (many) eyes of those the harmful acts & statements targeted.
If someone is transphobic in the past, it's up to trans people to forgive. If someone is hateful toward Mexicans, it's up to Mexicans to forgive. Nobody else is in control of that, and anyone who tries to assert any such control is part of a problem larger than "when is it okay to idolize public figures again?" And I phrase that question that way because that's kind of how this thread leans from how some people are discussing the matter.
I feel like a lot of you are speaking from places of never having been targeted before, to be frank. You can imagine all you want, but it's not the same thing. You can be adjacent to a person who has been targeted (be it a loved one or close friend, etc), but that's not the same thing. You can be in the same forum community, and that's not the same thing.
Fucking hell, I've lived most of my life passing as a generic white person, and it's only in the past four years or so where I've started to get treated differently for being of Mexican background. I haven't had a lifetime's worth of discrimination, but I have the contrast of life with it and life without it, and often with the same individual in the same situation changing their tune toward me once they learn my name & background.
Edit - An alternate version of the question being answered without it being asked in this thread is, "How can I continue to idolize a public figure without feeling guilty about it?"
I mean, for lots of these people we're talking about they owe "us" service in their public service jobs like governor or AG and when they fuck up or demonstrate previously unapparent characteristics or behaviour that might disqualify them from said role I think they do owe an apology or an explanation. You ran on a progressive platform but now we find you're a member of the KKK. What gives, Senator?
And for people like that we're not spectators, we're under their authority and very much affected by their actions. We have skin in the game and they've literally sworn an oath to serve us faithfully.
I don't consider them unobtainable either, at least, in most cases
but when I hear this narrative I start getting a super sketchy feeling, because it usually means someone's about to try and rationalize away a marginalized person's opinion because it doesn't fit an easy narrative
if I saw a room full of cis folk agreeing that we need to forgive someone's past transphobic actions I'd be making this face:
I don't think some conversations that should happen at all, depending on who's doing the talking
On the subject of the bolded
Let's say Individual X actually did do transphobic actions/thoughts/whatever many moons ago, because of whatever reason (probably trans representation for the last couple decades at the very least has been horrid).
Now X meets an actual trans person, say, 10 years ago. And it changes their entire outlook, and indeed their actions, because ignorance cultural norms were and largely still are horseshit. And further, let's say that meeting of that person bleeds over into what they push publicly.
This is a pretty common thing that's happened as cultural norms in the US (at least) have been absolutely shattered when it turns out that most of them were utter shit.
Does this person get their ignorant/cultural norm behavior from the 1990's looked at as a relic of the past and the actions of the ignorant?
I have said before in this thread that forgiveness and judgment of atonement being achieved is in the (many) eyes of those the harmful acts & statements targeted.
If someone is transphobic in the past, it's up to trans people to forgive. If someone is hateful toward Mexicans, it's up to Mexicans to forgive. Nobody else is in control of that, and anyone who tries to assert any such control is part of a problem larger than "when is it okay to idolize public figures again?" And I phrase that question that way because that's kind of how this thread leans from how some people are discussing the matter.
I feel like a lot of you are speaking from places of never having been targeted before, to be frank. You can imagine all you want, but it's not the same thing. You can be adjacent to a person who has been targeted (be it a loved one or close friend, etc), but that's not the same thing. You can be in the same forum community, and that's not the same thing.
Fucking hell, I've lived most of my life passing as a generic white person, and it's only in the past four years or so where I've started to get treated differently for being of Mexican background. I haven't had a lifetime's worth of discrimination, but I have the contrast of life with it and life without it, and often with the same individual in the same situation changing their tune toward me once they learn my name & background.
Edit - An alternate version of the question being answered without it being asked in this thread is, "How can I continue to idolize a public figure without feeling guilty about it?"
Maybe its just me and my cynicism, but there are very few public figures I idolize. I bet if you had polled this forum 3 weeks ago, maybe 1 person in 10 could have told you the name of the governor of Virginia. The public doesn't idolize these people in mass. They are looking at a trade off between effective governance and something else. I have no real love of my Gov. Tony Evers, he is a boring milquetoast bureaucrat with no real daring in his agenda or person. but if you told me he ate a baby 30 years ago and Scott Walker was becoming governor again my first response would be "Was the baby like already dead or.....?"
Also, the rest of your post is just prattle, I'm sure would work real good in Social Ethics 208, but it has basically 0 utility in the real functional world.
I'll just use Northam here cause he's convenient. How will the non African Americans know when African Americans forgive him? Will they do a census of themselves and send out a press release? Are we talking 100% forgiveness or like 67%, or 50%+1 or what? What if his "black friend" forgives him, that good enough?
Is the ability to forgive unitive or intersectional, ie if he had called someone a N-word Bitch, does he need forgiveness from Women and Black people or just Black Women? If both do they vote collectively or as 2 distinct groups. Ie. IF all non black women forgive him, but no black people do and there are more non-black women than black people, is he forgiven?
Also while this particular instance of racism was clearly specific to AA, Does not the culture of racism and bigotry perpetuates hurt all minorities? If it's this diffuse cultural harm that AA suffered from this frat party or w/e happening 35 years ago. Wouldn't that same miasma also have harmed say Mexicans? So shouldn't they get a say in it too?
And maybe he's the guy in the Klan robes anyhow? He certainly doesn't seem to remember. Fun fact, the Klan is not a big fan of Jews or Catholics either. So maybe they(pretty white in general) should get invited to the great "do we forgive him" colloquium as well.
Also, since we are dealing with this oil film like sense of harm, what is its geographic and temporal restrictions. Do only people who were alive at the time get a say? It was 35 years ago, a good chunk of them are dead. Also like, if you live in virginia now, do you get a say, or now and back when it happened, what if you lived in CA when it happened and move to virgina last year. What if you were born in Virginia but moved out in 2014?
You might as well have if they climb the mountain and bring down an Edelweiss blossom as your standard. At least that is something that you know, measurably happens or doesn't.
Do we really think it's that hard to take the temperature of a marginalized community with respect to a public figure whose offensive behaviour has been spotlighted? In a world where things like the NAACP, The Root, and "Black Twitter" exist, this whole throwing up your hands as if it's impossible to figure out who's done the work and who hasn't just makes it seem like you're not really willing to try and want to find ways of rationalizing that.
Buuuuuuut isn't the idea that they're no longer engaging in bigoted behavior, and in fact are legitimately remorseful and want to use their power to enact good?
Because if they're still doing bigoted shit, or don't care to make amends, then the question is an easy and uninteresting one. But that's not the question posed.
A lot of this discussion seems overly focused on the hypothetical ex-bigot. "He should step down because he did a bad thing and giving up power is the punishment for that." But that completely ignores what he can accomplish in his current position. It seems as if the question of where he can do the most good is irrelevant.
The issue is that this hypothetical individual did something bad in the first place. Stepping down shows contrition. Not stepping down is a continuation of the position that the individual has demonstrated they aren't suitable for.
If the individual is genuinely seeking atonement then they work towards it post scandal. That's where the good happens.
And the reason I hold this opinion is because too many bad actors have no interest in reform. You can't let them continue in the hope that maybe this time they will do better. Many times they ask for forgiveness while never intending to change their behavior.
Atonement should be difficult because genuine change is difficult.
+1
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
There is a crux of this argument that reminds me of a south park episode and Randy kisses jesse jacksons ass to apologize to the African American community. But it does bring the real question, who is saying that they’ve apologized or not apologized enough? Is there even a level of atonement that is “worth it?” At what point do we create a perverse incentive. IE Louis CK just going fuck it I’m changing my demographic.
+4
Options
MeeqeLord of the pants most fancySomeplace amazingRegistered Userregular
You literally have members of marginalized communities telling you how these actions by political actors affect them and what actions we'd like them to take, and then respond with "How could we ever know? And how could we ever know if it was enough?".
The real world utility about replacing malicious political actors and what actions those people could do to redeem themselves is of crucial important when you are the one in the firing line. Your ideas might work fine in a formal debate setting online, but dismissing minority concerns about their own safety as prattle is down right offensive.
I am not a member of group X whose rights are being trampled. I can still be upset with the folks leading the charge because I'm human and have compassion. The idea that only minorities can be offended by racist policies is silly.
There is a crux of this argument that reminds me of a south park episode and Randy kisses jesse jacksons ass to apologize to the African American community. But it does bring the real question, who is saying that they’ve apologized or not apologized enough? Is there even a level of atonement that is “worth it?” At what point do we create a perverse incentive. IE Louis CK just going fuck it I’m changing my demographic.
That might make sense...if Louis CK actually did any sort of atonement, instead of basically flipping everyone the bird for suggesting that he should be held accountable for sexually assaulting a number of comediennes and then ruining their careers to protect his. Which illustrates the problem - there's a lot of people who view contrition as beyond the pale.
You literally have members of marginalized communities telling you how these actions by political actors affect them and what actions we'd like them to take, and then respond with "How could we ever know? And how could we ever know if it was enough?".
My reading is that we're having a discussion about hypotheticals, and what the affected segment of a given individual's community might prefer. If the question is just "what does the PA community prefer?" then cool, question answered. But as the population of PA is not the population of, say, Virginia, it seems a fair point of discussion to ask how you measure the sentiment of that group of people.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
+3
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
I am not a member of group X whose rights are being trampled. I can still be upset with the folks leading the charge because I'm human and have compassion. The idea that only minorities can be offended by racist policies is silly.
Being upset and/or offended is one thing. It being your call on the person doing enough to 'atone' is another matter.
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Let's work with a more concrete scenario.
The cop that profiled me a few months thinking I was an illegal immigrant - if they offered an apology or made an effort to atone, who's call is it to accept; mine, or tinwhiskers'?
Do we really think it's that hard to take the temperature of a marginalized community with respect to a public figure whose offensive behaviour has been spotlighted? In a world where things like the NAACP, The Root, and "Black Twitter" exist, this whole throwing up your hands as if it's impossible to figure out who's done the work and who hasn't just makes it seem like you're not really willing to try and want to find ways of rationalizing that.
Taking the temperature doesn't mean anything if you can't say what a fever is. What in the past, ever has made twitter a good barometer for anything. Besides the discussion of the marginalization of men in the movie industry #GhostbustMEN.
And really "people" on twitter?
President Tяump has Done most excellent joњ яepresenting Бlack community. Бlack people love President Tяump. Иot Racist. #ForgiveЍ
The cop that profiled me a few months thinking I was an illegal immigrant - if they offered an apology or made an effort to atone, who's call is it to accept; mine, or tinwhiskers'?
It's up to you whether or not you accept the apology. It's up to the community (whatever that means) to decide whether the apology is enough to keep their job.
If they apologized to the community for being prejudice 20 years ago and have been spending their career attempting to atone? Is it still your call alone?
+3
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
The cop that profiled me a few months thinking I was an illegal immigrant - if they offered an apology or made an effort to atone, who's call is it to accept; mine, or tinwhiskers'?
It's up to you whether or not you accept the apology. It's up to the community (whatever that means) to decide whether the apology is enough to keep their job.
If they apologized to the community for being prejudice 20 years ago and have been spending their career attempting to atone? Is it still your call alone?
The nature of your post is reaffirming the point I've put forward in the thread, thank you.
The cop that profiled me a few months thinking I was an illegal immigrant - if they offered an apology or made an effort to atone, who's call is it to accept; mine, or tinwhiskers'?
A trick question! All [your minority] people obviously.
0
Options
MeeqeLord of the pants most fancySomeplace amazingRegistered Userregular
You literally have members of marginalized communities telling you how these actions by political actors affect them and what actions we'd like them to take, and then respond with "How could we ever know? And how could we ever know if it was enough?".
My reading is that we're having a discussion about hypotheticals, and what the affected segment of a given individual's community might prefer. If the question is just "what does the PA community prefer?" then cool, question answered. But as the population of PA is not the population of, say, Virginia, it seems a fair point of discussion to ask how you measure the sentiment of that group of people.
Totally fair point on sample size and self-sorting bias. It was more the response of "Hey, I and some of the other posters are from these groups, here are past harms along with what would work for us in terms of moving forward" and it got met with "We can never know, and complaining about wanting it fixed is prattle".
Do we really think it's that hard to take the temperature of a marginalized community with respect to a public figure whose offensive behaviour has been spotlighted? In a world where things like the NAACP, The Root, and "Black Twitter" exist, this whole throwing up your hands as if it's impossible to figure out who's done the work and who hasn't just makes it seem like you're not really willing to try and want to find ways of rationalizing that.
Taking the temperature doesn't mean anything if you can't say what a fever is. What in the past, ever has made twitter a good barometer for anything. Besides the discussion of the marginalization of men in the movie industry #GhostbustMEN.
And really "people" on twitter?
President Tяump has Done most excellent joњ яepresenting Бlack community. Бlack people love President Tяump. Иot Racist. #ForgiveЍ
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. I just listed three examples of sources of information people could use to get a sense of how a given community (in this case, the Black community) perceives an individual. If you don't like one, just use the others, and keep looking.
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
The cop that profiled me a few months thinking I was an illegal immigrant - if they offered an apology or made an effort to atone, who's call is it to accept; mine, or tinwhiskers'?
When someone is 20, they retweet a racist joke. They realize that was shitty, then work in their community to support minorities. When they are 50, they're thinking of running for office. If it's not the role of the minority community to collectively decide if this is okay, can you point me to the specific individual who gets veto power?
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
The cop that profiled me a few months thinking I was an illegal immigrant - if they offered an apology or made an effort to atone, who's call is it to accept; mine, or tinwhiskers'?
It's up to you whether or not you accept the apology. It's up to the community (whatever that means) to decide whether the apology is enough to keep their job.
If they apologized to the community for being prejudice 20 years ago and have been spending their career attempting to atone? Is it still your call alone?
The nature of your post is reaffirming the point I've put forward in the thread, thank you.
The nature of your post leads me to believe you expect that someone should reasonably have the res
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
The cop that profiled me a few months thinking I was an illegal immigrant - if they offered an apology or made an effort to atone, who's call is it to accept; mine, or tinwhiskers'?
When someone is 20, they retweet a racist joke. They realize that was shitty, then work in their community to support minorities. When they are 50, they're thinking of running for office. If it's not the role of the minority community to collectively decide if this is okay, can you point me to the specific individual who gets veto power?
You're arguing my point for me that it's the marginalized community's collective opinion on whether or not enough was done to atone. Though I used an instance of direct-wrongdoing vs. abstract.
Direct; harassing / being violent toward a person directly.
Abstract; shitty costume / stereotype promotion or participation.
In both cases the community's say is the most important. In the former though if someone was directly wronged, their word has the most weight in the conversation.
The cop that profiled me a few months thinking I was an illegal immigrant - if they offered an apology or made an effort to atone, who's call is it to accept; mine, or tinwhiskers'?
When someone is 20, they retweet a racist joke. They realize that was shitty, then work in their community to support minorities. When they are 50, they're thinking of running for office. If it's not the role of the minority community to collectively decide if this is okay, can you point me to the specific individual who gets veto power?
You're arguing my point for me that it's the marginalized community's collective opinion on whether or not enough was done to atone. Though I used an instance of direct-wrongdoing vs. abstract.
Direct; harassing / being violent toward a person directly.
Abstract; shitty costume / stereotype promotion or participation.
In both cases the community's say is the most important. In the former though if someone was directly wronged, their word has the most weight in the conversation.
Fair enough. When you said "The nature of your post is reaffirming the point I've put forward in the thread, thank you." I misread it as a passive-aggressive way of disagreeing with the point dispatch.o was trying to make, apologies.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Buuuuuuut isn't the idea that they're no longer engaging in bigoted behavior, and in fact are legitimately remorseful and want to use their power to enact good?
Because if they're still doing bigoted shit, or don't care to make amends, then the question is an easy and uninteresting one. But that's not the question posed.
A lot of this discussion seems overly focused on the hypothetical ex-bigot. "He should step down because he did a bad thing and giving up power is the punishment for that." But that completely ignores what he can accomplish in his current position. It seems as if the question of where he can do the most good is irrelevant.
The issue is that this hypothetical individual did something bad in the first place. Stepping down shows contrition. Not stepping down is a continuation of the position that the individual has demonstrated they aren't suitable for.
If the individual is genuinely seeking atonement then they work towards it post scandal. That's where the good happens.
And the reason I hold this opinion is because too many bad actors have no interest in reform. You can't let them continue in the hope that maybe this time they will do better. Many times they ask for forgiveness while never intending to change their behavior.
Atonement should be difficult because genuine change is difficult.
Have they shown they aren't suitable for the position? Is that not, in fact, the thing to be determined rather then the base assumption?
The whole question of this thread would seem to be centred around the idea of how to determine the suitability of someone who has done something bad in the past but isn't doing that thing any longer.
+4
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
The cop that profiled me a few months thinking I was an illegal immigrant - if they offered an apology or made an effort to atone, who's call is it to accept; mine, or tinwhiskers'?
When someone is 20, they retweet a racist joke. They realize that was shitty, then work in their community to support minorities. When they are 50, they're thinking of running for office. If it's not the role of the minority community to collectively decide if this is okay, can you point me to the specific individual who gets veto power?
You're arguing my point for me that it's the marginalized community's collective opinion on whether or not enough was done to atone. Though I used an instance of direct-wrongdoing vs. abstract.
Direct; harassing / being violent toward a person directly.
Abstract; shitty costume / stereotype promotion or participation.
In both cases the community's say is the most important. In the former though if someone was directly wronged, their word has the most weight in the conversation.
Fair enough. When you said "The nature of your post is reaffirming the point I've put forward in the thread, thank you." I misread it as a passive-aggressive way of disagreeing with the point dispatch.o was trying to make, apologies.
Sorry about that. It was not snark at all, it was 100% "that's what I'm saying."
Buuuuuuut isn't the idea that they're no longer engaging in bigoted behavior, and in fact are legitimately remorseful and want to use their power to enact good?
Because if they're still doing bigoted shit, or don't care to make amends, then the question is an easy and uninteresting one. But that's not the question posed.
A lot of this discussion seems overly focused on the hypothetical ex-bigot. "He should step down because he did a bad thing and giving up power is the punishment for that." But that completely ignores what he can accomplish in his current position. It seems as if the question of where he can do the most good is irrelevant.
The issue is that this hypothetical individual did something bad in the first place. Stepping down shows contrition. Not stepping down is a continuation of the position that the individual has demonstrated they aren't suitable for.
If the individual is genuinely seeking atonement then they work towards it post scandal. That's where the good happens.
And the reason I hold this opinion is because too many bad actors have no interest in reform. You can't let them continue in the hope that maybe this time they will do better. Many times they ask for forgiveness while never intending to change their behavior.
Atonement should be difficult because genuine change is difficult.
Have they shown they aren't suitable for the position? Is that not, in fact, the thing to be determined rather then the base assumption?
The whole question of this thread would seem to be centred around the idea of how to determine the suitability of someone who has done something bad in the past but isn't doing that thing any longer.
Based on the OP, that's a fair point. It seems to me that this is going to be very subject to moving goal posts (Clinton as noted earlier in the thread). I'm not sure that there will ever be a concrete answer to that question.
I have to ask, though, is it worth focusing on the marginal cases (e.g. James Gunn) when there are so many bad actors that obviously don't belong in the positions of power they hold?
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
The best apology for a bad thing you did or said a long time ago is having already confronted it and atoned for it. Most people would obviously prefer to forget about their mistakes and move on, but part of being a leader is having the moral courage not only to learn and grow over time but also to apply that learning retroactively, to confront and reckon with the person you used to be. Too often the response to having your past dredged up is “I’m sorry I got caught” or “I barely even remember doing that” or “I don’t really get why this bothers you,” when what I want hear is “I have already gone through the process of grappling with the problem of who I used to be, and that has spurred my work to improve things for others in a related way.”
The best apology for a bad thing you did or said a long time ago is having already confronted it and atoned for it. Most people would obviously prefer to forget about their mistakes and move on, but part of being a leader is having the moral courage not only to learn and grow over time but also to apply that learning retroactively, to confront and reckon with the person you used to be. Too often the response to having your past dredged up is “I’m sorry I got caught” or “I barely even remember doing that” or “I don’t really get why this bothers you,” when what I want hear is “I have already gone through the process of grappling with the problem of who I used to be, and that has spurred my work to improve things for others in a related way.”
I pretty much agree with this, but conceptually the rationale is more about the need for authority and accountability to go hand in hand. If someone gets into a position of authority without ever having to own up to their past misdeeds, it doesn't give me a lot of confidence that they would accept accountability anything that goes wrong on their watch in future.
+2
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
The best apology for a bad thing you did or said a long time ago is having already confronted it and atoned for it. Most people would obviously prefer to forget about their mistakes and move on, but part of being a leader is having the moral courage not only to learn and grow over time but also to apply that learning retroactively, to confront and reckon with the person you used to be. Too often the response to having your past dredged up is “I’m sorry I got caught” or “I barely even remember doing that” or “I don’t really get why this bothers you,” when what I want hear is “I have already gone through the process of grappling with the problem of who I used to be, and that has spurred my work to improve things for others in a related way.”
I pretty much agree with this, but conceptually the rationale is more about the need for authority and accountability to go hand in hand. If someone gets into a position of authority without ever having to own up to their past misdeeds, it doesn't give me a lot of confidence that they would accept accountability anything that goes wrong on their watch in future.
Politicians are not famous for accepting accountability (which is a skill that doesn't seem to get you very far in politics)
The best apology for a bad thing you did or said a long time ago is having already confronted it and atoned for it. Most people would obviously prefer to forget about their mistakes and move on, but part of being a leader is having the moral courage not only to learn and grow over time but also to apply that learning retroactively, to confront and reckon with the person you used to be. Too often the response to having your past dredged up is “I’m sorry I got caught” or “I barely even remember doing that” or “I don’t really get why this bothers you,” when what I want hear is “I have already gone through the process of grappling with the problem of who I used to be, and that has spurred my work to improve things for others in a related way.”
I pretty much agree with this, but conceptually the rationale is more about the need for authority and accountability to go hand in hand. If someone gets into a position of authority without ever having to own up to their past misdeeds, it doesn't give me a lot of confidence that they would accept accountability anything that goes wrong on their watch in future.
Politicians are not famous for accepting accountability (which is a skill that doesn't seem to get you very far in politics)
One might even say that politicians are famous for not accepting accountability.
Assuming that oppressed groups should have more moral authority over issues directly affecting them, is that authority innately granted by their oppressed status or given to them by the majority of society (or you, the person reading this) out of sympathy? There are certainly groups out there that could qualify as being oppressed but have utterly failed to gain our sympathy (like, say, serial killers), and we generally don't consider them to have any greater moral authority in any area. If the only reason that minorities have moral authority is that society (or you personally) is choosing to grant them that authority, doesn't the majority disagreeing with them on a particular instance take away that moral authority?
I'm concerned that most arguments here will ultimately boil down to "minorities have the right to be offended by this past thing because I, a member of the majority with no direct involvement, have personally reviewed the situation and okayed it", or "minorities no longer have the right to be offended by this past thing because I've personally decided that they don't". That's an issue that all philosophy has, of course, but it seems much more directly pertinent here.
.. comparing black and/or LGBT people with serial killers is certainly a take.
Besides it's not even exclusivity "acts against an oppressed group". That just comes up most often because surprise! Easiest to get away with and pre existing prejudice.
.. comparing black and/or LGBT people with serial killers is certainly a take.
It's a very straightforward comparison. Black and LGBT people are very often nice or even awesome people, while serial killers are generally terrible people. Our opinions of them are heavily tied into that difference.
The remorseful and reformed politician must present his shameful past before asking voters to give them the responsibility of enacting the agenda they're selling. Anything less is a selfish pursuit of power at the expense of actually enacting Good Policy and that in itself is disqualifying in my eyes.
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
The remorseful and reformed politician must present his shameful past before asking voters to give them the responsibility of enacting the agenda they're selling. Anything less is a selfish pursuit of power at the expense of actually enacting Good Policy and that in itself is disqualifying in my eyes.
I don't know if it's realistic to expect politicians to start their careers by doing and then releasing all worthwhile opposition research on themselves
The remorseful and reformed politician must present his shameful past before asking voters to give them the responsibility of enacting the agenda they're selling. Anything less is a selfish pursuit of power at the expense of actually enacting Good Policy and that in itself is disqualifying in my eyes.
I don't know if it's realistic to expect politicians to start their careers by doing and then releasing all worthwhile opposition research on themselves
What if we ask?
Like, next Virginia gubernatorial primary debate, I feel like it would be downright irresponsible not to ask if anybody on stage had ever dressed up in a racist costume. I know why you wouldn't volunteer it, but why wouldn't or shouldn't the public ask?
Posts
An apology or proof of having overcome past shortcomings is in the interest of the public figure, to retain good will from the audience/voters, or for a personal process of closure.
Its pretty awkard to see all this mob justice claiming who should or shouldnt apologice and all this scales of who is salvageable and who isnt.
Maybe y’all should start naming names rather than putting together hypothetical situations?
Twitch (I stream most days of the week)
Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
This is valuable to voters to know whether or not a past action is indicative of future actions or not. Even if they dont believe it in their heart of hearts so long as they know that its unacceptable to do and follow through in doing those things it doesnt matter
Yes, an apology serves the interests of a politician... but only because it seeves the interests of the public to inform them about the actions of the politician
If someone is transphobic in the past, it's up to trans people to forgive. If someone is hateful toward Mexicans, it's up to Mexicans to forgive. Nobody else is in control of that, and anyone who tries to assert any such control is part of a problem larger than "when is it okay to idolize public figures again?" And I phrase that question that way because that's kind of how this thread leans from how some people are discussing the matter.
I feel like a lot of you are speaking from places of never having been targeted before, to be frank. You can imagine all you want, but it's not the same thing. You can be adjacent to a person who has been targeted (be it a loved one or close friend, etc), but that's not the same thing. You can be in the same forum community, and that's not the same thing.
Fucking hell, I've lived most of my life passing as a generic white person, and it's only in the past four years or so where I've started to get treated differently for being of Mexican background. I haven't had a lifetime's worth of discrimination, but I have the contrast of life with it and life without it, and often with the same individual in the same situation changing their tune toward me once they learn my name & background.
Edit - An alternate version of the question being answered without it being asked in this thread is, "How can I continue to idolize a public figure without feeling guilty about it?"
And for people like that we're not spectators, we're under their authority and very much affected by their actions. We have skin in the game and they've literally sworn an oath to serve us faithfully.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Maybe its just me and my cynicism, but there are very few public figures I idolize. I bet if you had polled this forum 3 weeks ago, maybe 1 person in 10 could have told you the name of the governor of Virginia. The public doesn't idolize these people in mass. They are looking at a trade off between effective governance and something else. I have no real love of my Gov. Tony Evers, he is a boring milquetoast bureaucrat with no real daring in his agenda or person. but if you told me he ate a baby 30 years ago and Scott Walker was becoming governor again my first response would be "Was the baby like already dead or.....?"
Also, the rest of your post is just prattle, I'm sure would work real good in Social Ethics 208, but it has basically 0 utility in the real functional world.
I'll just use Northam here cause he's convenient. How will the non African Americans know when African Americans forgive him? Will they do a census of themselves and send out a press release? Are we talking 100% forgiveness or like 67%, or 50%+1 or what? What if his "black friend" forgives him, that good enough?
Is the ability to forgive unitive or intersectional, ie if he had called someone a N-word Bitch, does he need forgiveness from Women and Black people or just Black Women? If both do they vote collectively or as 2 distinct groups. Ie. IF all non black women forgive him, but no black people do and there are more non-black women than black people, is he forgiven?
Also while this particular instance of racism was clearly specific to AA, Does not the culture of racism and bigotry perpetuates hurt all minorities? If it's this diffuse cultural harm that AA suffered from this frat party or w/e happening 35 years ago. Wouldn't that same miasma also have harmed say Mexicans? So shouldn't they get a say in it too?
And maybe he's the guy in the Klan robes anyhow? He certainly doesn't seem to remember. Fun fact, the Klan is not a big fan of Jews or Catholics either. So maybe they(pretty white in general) should get invited to the great "do we forgive him" colloquium as well.
Also, since we are dealing with this oil film like sense of harm, what is its geographic and temporal restrictions. Do only people who were alive at the time get a say? It was 35 years ago, a good chunk of them are dead. Also like, if you live in virginia now, do you get a say, or now and back when it happened, what if you lived in CA when it happened and move to virgina last year. What if you were born in Virginia but moved out in 2014?
You might as well have if they climb the mountain and bring down an Edelweiss blossom as your standard. At least that is something that you know, measurably happens or doesn't.
The issue is that this hypothetical individual did something bad in the first place. Stepping down shows contrition. Not stepping down is a continuation of the position that the individual has demonstrated they aren't suitable for.
If the individual is genuinely seeking atonement then they work towards it post scandal. That's where the good happens.
And the reason I hold this opinion is because too many bad actors have no interest in reform. You can't let them continue in the hope that maybe this time they will do better. Many times they ask for forgiveness while never intending to change their behavior.
Atonement should be difficult because genuine change is difficult.
The real world utility about replacing malicious political actors and what actions those people could do to redeem themselves is of crucial important when you are the one in the firing line. Your ideas might work fine in a formal debate setting online, but dismissing minority concerns about their own safety as prattle is down right offensive.
That might make sense...if Louis CK actually did any sort of atonement, instead of basically flipping everyone the bird for suggesting that he should be held accountable for sexually assaulting a number of comediennes and then ruining their careers to protect his. Which illustrates the problem - there's a lot of people who view contrition as beyond the pale.
My reading is that we're having a discussion about hypotheticals, and what the affected segment of a given individual's community might prefer. If the question is just "what does the PA community prefer?" then cool, question answered. But as the population of PA is not the population of, say, Virginia, it seems a fair point of discussion to ask how you measure the sentiment of that group of people.
The cop that profiled me a few months thinking I was an illegal immigrant - if they offered an apology or made an effort to atone, who's call is it to accept; mine, or tinwhiskers'?
Taking the temperature doesn't mean anything if you can't say what a fever is. What in the past, ever has made twitter a good barometer for anything. Besides the discussion of the marginalization of men in the movie industry #GhostbustMEN.
And really "people" on twitter?
President Tяump has Done most excellent joњ яepresenting Бlack community. Бlack people love President Tяump. Иot Racist. #ForgiveЍ
It's up to you whether or not you accept the apology. It's up to the community (whatever that means) to decide whether the apology is enough to keep their job.
If they apologized to the community for being prejudice 20 years ago and have been spending their career attempting to atone? Is it still your call alone?
A trick question! All [your minority] people obviously.
Totally fair point on sample size and self-sorting bias. It was more the response of "Hey, I and some of the other posters are from these groups, here are past harms along with what would work for us in terms of moving forward" and it got met with "We can never know, and complaining about wanting it fixed is prattle".
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. I just listed three examples of sources of information people could use to get a sense of how a given community (in this case, the Black community) perceives an individual. If you don't like one, just use the others, and keep looking.
When someone is 20, they retweet a racist joke. They realize that was shitty, then work in their community to support minorities. When they are 50, they're thinking of running for office. If it's not the role of the minority community to collectively decide if this is okay, can you point me to the specific individual who gets veto power?
The nature of your post leads me to believe you expect that someone should reasonably have the res
Direct; harassing / being violent toward a person directly.
Abstract; shitty costume / stereotype promotion or participation.
In both cases the community's say is the most important. In the former though if someone was directly wronged, their word has the most weight in the conversation.
Fair enough. When you said "The nature of your post is reaffirming the point I've put forward in the thread, thank you." I misread it as a passive-aggressive way of disagreeing with the point dispatch.o was trying to make, apologies.
Have they shown they aren't suitable for the position? Is that not, in fact, the thing to be determined rather then the base assumption?
The whole question of this thread would seem to be centred around the idea of how to determine the suitability of someone who has done something bad in the past but isn't doing that thing any longer.
Based on the OP, that's a fair point. It seems to me that this is going to be very subject to moving goal posts (Clinton as noted earlier in the thread). I'm not sure that there will ever be a concrete answer to that question.
I have to ask, though, is it worth focusing on the marginal cases (e.g. James Gunn) when there are so many bad actors that obviously don't belong in the positions of power they hold?
I pretty much agree with this, but conceptually the rationale is more about the need for authority and accountability to go hand in hand. If someone gets into a position of authority without ever having to own up to their past misdeeds, it doesn't give me a lot of confidence that they would accept accountability anything that goes wrong on their watch in future.
Politicians are not famous for accepting accountability (which is a skill that doesn't seem to get you very far in politics)
One might even say that politicians are famous for not accepting accountability.
I'm concerned that most arguments here will ultimately boil down to "minorities have the right to be offended by this past thing because I, a member of the majority with no direct involvement, have personally reviewed the situation and okayed it", or "minorities no longer have the right to be offended by this past thing because I've personally decided that they don't". That's an issue that all philosophy has, of course, but it seems much more directly pertinent here.
Besides it's not even exclusivity "acts against an oppressed group". That just comes up most often because surprise! Easiest to get away with and pre existing prejudice.
It's a very straightforward comparison. Black and LGBT people are very often nice or even awesome people, while serial killers are generally terrible people. Our opinions of them are heavily tied into that difference.
I don't know if it's realistic to expect politicians to start their careers by doing and then releasing all worthwhile opposition research on themselves
What if we ask?
Like, next Virginia gubernatorial primary debate, I feel like it would be downright irresponsible not to ask if anybody on stage had ever dressed up in a racist costume. I know why you wouldn't volunteer it, but why wouldn't or shouldn't the public ask?