So let’s say you’re arguing with a genocidal monster, and you successfully convince them that genocide is wrong. That’s only one aspect of their reality. And maybe they’re sad that they’re wrong. Maybe they remain racist and sexist and anti-Semitic etc. Why be kind?
As far as I can tell, your view is that it's important to stress that, when arguing with a genocidal monster/racist/anti-semite, breaking down their worldview is good; the pain they may feel is morally irrelevant (or perhaps good?); and being unkind to them is justified. Yes?
-
-
No, the pain is not morally irrelevant. Whether it is good or bad or neither depends on the situation. See, nuance. Not being kind can be justified, yes, especially when the abandoned belief is only one of a constellation of horrors.
-
Yes, depending on the particulars of a case, almost any reaction can be justified. But the spirit of the author's message I thought was clear and the intended scope of the exhortation seemed to be cases of a more typical & pragmatic nature, not constellations of horrors.
-
I can't tell if we're having a useful exchange or just kind of talking past each other. I hope not the latter, but, in any event, I wish you all the best - have to head to sleep now.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Perhaps. If someone has many morally reprehensible views, something in their life/experience/mind must be terribly amiss, &so kindness might just mean trying 2 recognize they must be v. broken 2 hold such views & start there. More likely 2 change views & make world better, no?
-
So even if we focus on your genocidal monster cases (which are clearly not what the author was talking about), more work would be needed to show that kindness in breaking their worldview was unwarranted.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Here’s another quote from the piece: “Your time is better spent championing good ideas than tearing down bad ones. Don't waste time explaining why bad ideas are bad. You are simply fanning the flame of ignorance and stupidity.”/1
-
This strikes me as lacking nuance. Explaining why bad ideas are bad is often needed to explain why good ideas are good. Eg to explain why liberal egalitarianism is good, one needs to explain why illiberalism and anti-egalitarianism are bad. Feel free to use a different example.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.