You're viewing part of a thread.
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.
But it doesn't. It perfectly fine to say Hamas terrorist attacks are wrong and at the same town saying the Israeli genocide is wrong.
The problem is that when Russia bombs a children's hospital and it's pointed out as a war crime, there's always some schmuck saying "Oh yeah?! But the US is responsible for hundreds of thousand dead civilians in Afghanistan!"
And yes, that is fucking heineous but it doesn't make leveling a hospital less severe. 🙄A bad is a bad.
Again, your moral equivalence results in standing back and watching Palestine be erased from the map. Equal condemnation for unequal evils minimizes the worse and raises the lesser evil.
I don't understand your logic at all. Being anti-terrorism is not equal to being pro-genocide and vice versa.
It isn't a black and white world and taking a stance doesn't require sith lord reasoning.Saying that you condemn both assault and murder doesn't make one worse and the other less so. It's a simple acknowledgement of wrong acts being wrong which is perfectly fine.
Equating all bad as simply "bad" regardless of context, intensity, direction, and more is a privledged western position that seeks to undermine liberatory movements and entrenches the status quo. The status quo may be "bad," but by your analysis so it overturning the status quo. This is the kind of moralism that was used against the Civil Rights Movement, Palestinian Liberation, anti-slavery movements, and more.