X has to condem Y

[Mytical]

Some of the things that I've heard people say that "If you don't vocally condem <x> then you support it" My feelings on that is summed up best with the link below, between 9:48 and 13:25.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/736674

[lordlundar]

Yup, it's pissing me off. Usually the ones making this claim have a very binary view as well. To them there's no walking away from it or avoiding the extremists altogether, it's "You either do what we say or you're the enemy!" and this is irrespective of whatever the stance is. It's guilt by association and guilt before innocence and is bullshit all around.

To that I say "go eff yourself". I don't answer to you or anyone you associate with. My choices are my own and if you want to judge me then judge me by my own actions, not by some asshole who I've never heard of, let alone met who twists a perspective to satisfy their own ends. This also applies to here as well. I am very selective of what I post and where because too many people in some of these discussions are blinded by ideology and rhetoric that even taking a measured response is unwelcome, it's "wholly agree or gtfo." when there is a large range of in between.

[Andara Bledin]

I can agree with the "vocally" part. Nobody has to vocally anything.

The problem you run into is context.

If you're discussing something newsworthy such as, say, the recent attack on a satire publication by religious extremists, it's kind of hard to avoid taking a stance on the issue of whether it's ok to murder satirical artists in the name of your religion or not.

If, however, you're discussing ethics in journalism, and the discussion is actually focused on ethics in journalism and avoiding discussion of the group using that cause as their shield for attacks on a demographic that they don't like, then nobody should feel the need to decry said group's actions, as it's not germane to the discussion.

[Mytical]

Ok, this is probably going to get me in hot water, but I've never been one to not speak my mind. So here goes. Warning possible triggers below.

I have no idea how, but a discussion somehow got off of the rails and the subject of rape come up. A female friend of mine had recently heard about how an accusation of the above had turned out to be false, and somebody said that no matter any inconsistencies a accusation of rape should be believed without any investigation or questions.

I took exception to this, because while I detest rapist.. a long time ago I was accused. Note, I am still a virgin.. so .. anyhow.. this led to a "If you are not outspoken against rape, you are part of the problem'. I don't know any sane sensible person would be against rape, and that nobody should be required to say "I am against rape". It should be a given. Now this is not the only example by far. It happens a lot. As a middle aged white man, I guess 24 hours a day, 7 days a week I would have to be outspoken about something. Any time some white guy commits a robbery, assault, etc I am supporting that unless I come out and say "I am against X"

[HYHYBT]

That's a particularly bad one. How could anybody not tealize that, even if it *were* true now that nobody ever makes false or mistaken accusations, that would not remain true for long if skipping past investigation, trial, etc. became common practice?

[Andara Bledin]

A female friend of mine had recently heard about how an accusation of the above had turned out to be false, and somebody said that no matter any inconsistencies a accusation of rape should be believed without any investigation or questions.

That person who said that is completely and unequivocally wrong.

If someone claims that they have been raped, they should be supported as if this is a fact until such time as it's proven that they weren't. No argument there.

But just because the claim is about something horrid does not remove the same right for support and fact-based action of the accused. Unless and until there is some evidence beyond the mere claim that the accused is guilty, the most that should be done is to keep the parties separated until truth and reality (or as close as can be determined) is sorted out.

And this goes treble for cases involving such highly stigmatized events such as rape and sexual assault that will ruin a person's reputation without requiring any truth at all.

[Mytical]

Since I am very open minded, and tend not to judge people .. a lot of my friends have ideas that I do not agree with. Which 99.9% of the time we will have some interesting debates. So I know that somethings are going to come along that will raise my eyebrow ala Spock. Which I have no issue with. Just sometimes I have to wonder where something came from.

[Hyena Dandy]

If you're discussing something newsworthy such as, say, the recent attack on a satire publication by religious extremists, it's kind of hard to avoid taking a stance on the issue of whether it's ok to murder satirical artists in the name of your religion or not.

It is hard to avoid, yes. But it's also such a heinous act that people probably get tired of condemning it. I imagine many Muslims feel the way many Christians feel about the anti-gay/anti-abortion thing. Tired of every time something happened, being asked to go back to square one and restate you don't approve, and being told you're not disapproving loud enough for some arbitrary standard.

[Seshat]

I am for male support in the ongoing fight against sexist behaviour from 'those men'. I'm sure you can all think of friends, acquaintences, co-irkers, who are in the 'those men' group: if nothing comes to mind immediately, check out this comic.

http://www.robot-hugs.com/harassment/

BUT: I don't want men to feel like they 'have to' do anything. You don't. It's just that if you do, you're teaching 'those men' that their behaviour is not accepted by their peers.
The theory is that 'those men' behave that way in part because they think it's the socially accepted way to behave; if they learn that it's not, maybe, just maybe, they'll change.



I also believe the same for most other sorts of bigotry. And so when someone is religion-bigoted around me, I often speak up. Or class-bigoted. Or whatever.
Not always, admittedly. Just often. And yes, it gets me some strange feedback.


That said, few things are truly polarised.

I firmly believe that there are few elements of human behaviour which are black and white - most are continuua. (Continuums?)

So yeah, maybe you don't think that everyone has a right to say anything they want anywhere at all, even on someone else's private property, even 'fire' in a crowded theatre.
Doesn't mean you're against the ideas in the First Amendment of the US Constitution. Just means you think 'free speech' should have some limits on it - like not generating the mob effect, and not overriding tresspass laws.

Ditto for the polarised sides of 'gun control', or 'abortion', or whatever the hot button of the moment is. Folks, it's not always black and white. Look at the continuum!

[Hyena Dandy]

I firmly believe that there are few elements of human behaviour which are black and white - most are continuua. (Continuums?)

Continua is it, yeah, though it's more common to say "On a Continuum" in a sentence like that.

[Mr Hero]

I don't know if it's the same thing or not, but I regularly see posts on Facebook to the effect of "share if you're against rape/abuse/Hitler/etc." with the implication that if you don't repost, you support those things. It's annoying because I don't think I should publicly announce I'm against such heinous things as it should be a given if I'm assumed to be a functional human being.

[BlaqueKatt]

I don't know if it's the same thing or not, but I regularly see posts on Facebook to the effect of "share if you're against rape/abuse/Hitler/etc." with the implication that if you don't repost, you support those things.

I really want to make one that says "share if you're against guilt posting memes"
Because really, I don't share those purely out of spite.

[Mytical]

I don't know if it's the same thing or not, but I regularly see posts on Facebook to the effect of "share if you're against rape/abuse/Hitler/etc." with the implication that if you don't repost, you support those things. It's annoying because I don't think I should publicly announce I'm against such heinous things as it should be a given if I'm assumed to be a functional human being.

Yes, to me it is the same thing. Guilt posting. No thanks, people can think what they want, not going to repost those. Now one of the funny ones I've seen has to be from somebody with english as a second language. It's share if your for god, skip if you are for Satanas (or is it Santas.. been awhile since I seen that one)

[MrsEclipse]

It's share if your for god, skip if you are for Satanas (or is it Santas.. been awhile since I seen that one)

Or "Ignore if you love Stan!"

Personally, I don't see a difference between those stupid image memes and making Muslims outright state they're against the action of extremists. They accomplish exactly the same thing in actually ending the problem at hand. Instead of saying, "Hey, you have to condemn X," we need to be saying, "What can we do together to bring an end to X?" And nobody's going to say that because it's a million times easier to share so everyone knows you don't love Stan, or to say that it's Muslim's job to deal with the extremists in their group.

[Hyena Dandy]

Personally, I don't see a difference between those stupid image memes and making Muslims outright state they're against the action of extremists. They accomplish exactly the same thing in actually ending the problem at hand.

I definitely see a difference. The stupid image memes are just that, stupid images. They're meant to get your page or whatever more attention, and they're aimed at everyone. There's not a big national call and news shows talking about how you're not 'doing enough' to fight Satan because of those images not getting enough shares. People who don't share those are less likely to be told they aren't doing enough when they bring up being on Facebook, while Muslims in all quarters are frequently told they aren't 'doing enough' to condemn terrorists.

Those things are just about getting the image attention, while the latter is about justifying your hatred of Muslims by having a vague standard of condemniness and complaining that they don't meet it.