Lately, there have been a few cases of high-profile individuals caught saying or doing something racist/homophobic, leading to a huge public outcry. There's Phil Robertson from Duck Dynasty, Paula Dean, Brendan Eich, and Roger Sterling as of late. The purpose of this thread is not to discuss the particulars of these cases, but to analyze a common trend in the conversation about them.
In most cases, you will have a token liberal (we'll call her Libby) and a token conservative (her name is Conny) arguing on opposite sides of the case, in a fairly consistent fashion: Libby says that these comments are deplorable, and that that it is a good thing that this person was removed from their public position. On the other hand, Conny says that, though the comments were unkind, we can't go around firing people because they go against the public opinion.
At this point, Conny attempts a tactic that I see fairly often, and it goes something like this:
Libby: Public relations director Mr. Smith said some blatantly racist things. This affects his customers and coworkers, so it is only natural that he be ousted by his superiors. I find the reaction to be perfectly acceptable, and I don't feel the slightest bit sorry for him.
Conny: Okay, fine, but let's imagine a slightly different scenario. Suppose that Mr. Smith was actually working for a company that describes itself as very religious, and that Mr. Smith has lots of evangelical Christian coworkers and customers. Then, Mr. Smith announces that he is a homosexual, and has had a live-in male partner for some time. Would you find it acceptable if Mr. Smith was fired? Would you feel sorry for him?
It's a clever strategy. Reformulate the scenario in a way that the token liberal wouldn't like. But are the two versions really comparable?
I don't think they are, at least not entirely. While it is true that Conny's scenario does have an effect on Mr. Smith's customers, there is a distinct difference (dare I say, a moral one) between the two.
Being a homosexual does not inherently denote an attitude towards anyone else, particularly a negative one. Racism and homophobia do, and it's silly to imagine that this is meaningless in terms of culpability. These are not just opposing views - two sides of the same coin. The difference between promoting equal rights and opposing them amounts to a lot more than a gut feeling. The two are not interchangeable.
Now, does this matter so much that Mr. Smith's boss should take it into account? On that point, I'm not entirely sure.
Let me know what you think.
In most cases, you will have a token liberal (we'll call her Libby) and a token conservative (her name is Conny) arguing on opposite sides of the case, in a fairly consistent fashion: Libby says that these comments are deplorable, and that that it is a good thing that this person was removed from their public position. On the other hand, Conny says that, though the comments were unkind, we can't go around firing people because they go against the public opinion.
At this point, Conny attempts a tactic that I see fairly often, and it goes something like this:
Libby: Public relations director Mr. Smith said some blatantly racist things. This affects his customers and coworkers, so it is only natural that he be ousted by his superiors. I find the reaction to be perfectly acceptable, and I don't feel the slightest bit sorry for him.
Conny: Okay, fine, but let's imagine a slightly different scenario. Suppose that Mr. Smith was actually working for a company that describes itself as very religious, and that Mr. Smith has lots of evangelical Christian coworkers and customers. Then, Mr. Smith announces that he is a homosexual, and has had a live-in male partner for some time. Would you find it acceptable if Mr. Smith was fired? Would you feel sorry for him?
It's a clever strategy. Reformulate the scenario in a way that the token liberal wouldn't like. But are the two versions really comparable?
I don't think they are, at least not entirely. While it is true that Conny's scenario does have an effect on Mr. Smith's customers, there is a distinct difference (dare I say, a moral one) between the two.
Being a homosexual does not inherently denote an attitude towards anyone else, particularly a negative one. Racism and homophobia do, and it's silly to imagine that this is meaningless in terms of culpability. These are not just opposing views - two sides of the same coin. The difference between promoting equal rights and opposing them amounts to a lot more than a gut feeling. The two are not interchangeable.
Now, does this matter so much that Mr. Smith's boss should take it into account? On that point, I'm not entirely sure.
Let me know what you think.
via JREF Forum http://ift.tt/R4dPND
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire