When to separate and when to condemn?

[catra]

How do we decide when opinions are problematic enough to completely condemn a person? When does one offensive opinion/instance of ignorance outweigh what’s positive?

 

for example, AOC (alexandria ocasio cortez). she generally fights for women, people of color, and equality, but still attends the women’s march (known for being incredibly anti-semitic) and recently tweeted a quote mentioning the holocaust to support ilhan omar, who has also been anti-semitic. does her advocacy outweigh her disregard for anti-semitism? when will she truly be held accountable?

 

speaking of ilhan omar, is it okay to separate her anti-semitism from her suffering of islamophobia? she has been wrongfully attacked for being islamic, but  she also puts down her jewish brothers and sisters. will we allow her to continue as is because she is a muslim, or will we condemn her for her actions?

 

where is the line between true equality and ignorant/blinded support?

[Scottthespy]

The question you're asking is impossible to answer from the perspective of identity politics. This is, when boiled down to it, not asking where to draw the line, but instead asking who requires the most protection, and that's going to change dependent on who's saying it. You wouldn't be asking if it was, say, a straight white man who supported feminism and people of colour who was suddenly discovered supporting antisemitism. 

 

Beyond the issues of identity politics, though, there's a larger problem with 'condemning' people for their actions. When you deplatform some one, block them, stop listening, they don't disappear. They just find other, more hidden spaces with people who agree with them. Condemning people who have partaken in actions you don't personally support results in forcing these people into echo chambers where they only cement the views you don't like, and ALSO makes it so you can't keep tabs on them to know if they're planning anything drastic. This is compounded by the fact that a person now has to go their entire life without ever saying anything that will ever be out of favor, because you can go back ten years and take a tweet from a different time in some ones life, or a different culture, and base your opinion of them on that quote which may no longer have any bearing on the person. 

 

Aside from those problems, this mindset also creates a 'support wholly' or 'denounce wholly' sort of situation...why can't you support the good ideas and condemn the bad? Everyone has both in them. No one is perfect and no one is pure evil.

 

And lastly, condemning a person means completely giving up on them, and that's just not helpful. Especially if they still have some of what you would personally consider redeeming qualities, when does it ever help to just erase some one? Maybe they're struggling, maybe they don't understand the way you do, maybe they've been fed misinformation or are just plain not very smart. Maybe they could be an ally if, instead of writing them off as 'tainted and worthless', you took the time to try and understand why they do as they do, feel as they feel. If you ask them to listen to you, after you've listened to them. 

 

 

To sum it up, never. Never 'condemn' someone over some disagreements on policy or  talking points, because all it does is shut them away and deepen divides and prove to them that they were right in the first place. Talk openly, talk alot. Listen carefully and as much as you talk. Learn about others and be willing to let others learn about you without forcing your views down their throats. Do this, and you may just change the world. Fail, and you'll find your circle of friends and influences shrinking to zero and they each fail to automatically meet just one of your standards.

[Guest]

8 hours ago, catra said:

How do we decide when opinions are problematic enough to completely condemn a person?

For me, it's more important for the standard to be applied equally. 

 

If someone gets a free pass, yet another is forced to step down, I see the hypocrisy as the issue--not the conveyed opinions. 

 

Also I think an opinion that is truly dangerous, not one taken as such by those offended by it is where the line should be drawn. 

 

I have seen so many statements being condemned based on being taken out of context. 

[Jusey1]

Condemning people is more of a last resort type of thing if someone has gotten so bad and toxic in your life that you need to get away from them. Having a disagreement isn't worth condemning, especially if they're a good person to some extent and you can discuss things with them.

In all honestly, I think I only ever condemned one person out of my life and that was an Uncle of mine... I rather not go into details about his track record. Let's just say that he is the only person I actually know that I believe truly will burn in hell.

[uhtred]

I believe in condemning the specific ideas, not the people.   With political candidates, its possible to believe that they should not be in office, without condemning them.  That is how I feel about AOC (for different issues, eg socialism), I think she is basically a good smart person, but I don't want her in public office until she changes some of her positions. 

 

There are some people so awful that I will condemn them as people (like our current president) but that is pretty rare.