Let's say someone, Person 1 is an advocate against the evils
of X.
And said person been writing about the prevalence of X and
people who are doing it.
Then it comes out that a friend, associate, or even another writer our Person 1 is a fan of (we'll term him/her as Person 2), has been accused of doing X. And there's evidence of it. X isn't criminal but it is a major social faux-pas.
Then it comes out that a friend, associate, or even another writer our Person 1 is a fan of (we'll term him/her as Person 2), has been accused of doing X. And there's evidence of it. X isn't criminal but it is a major social faux-pas.
Now there is a tendency for Person 1 to go "Well that's
different!" "That was satire!"
"Person 2 doesn't think that way!" "That wasn't /really/
X!" A lot of it doesn't even
have to be naked partisan/tribal/whatever bias.
A lot can simply be "I know Person 2, thus I can make a better judgment on the totality of their actions". Then add in that if Person 1 is predisposed to thinking favorably of Person 2....
A lot can simply be "I know Person 2, thus I can make a better judgment on the totality of their actions". Then add in that if Person 1 is predisposed to thinking favorably of Person 2....
Or that while Person 1 is an advocate against X but they think the punishment being demanded of Person 2 is inappropriate.
There's a lot of subtleties that can be put into a how someone can react in a way that can seem like "It's different when /we/ do it!"
Now add in that Person 1 makes a point of "General
internet people don't get to demand what I write about, who I debate and what issues
I deal with."
Which is completely fair.
Though it still makes one wonder if Person 1 has.... blind spots about Issue X.
But then comes along Person 3.
Person 3 (another writer and advocate) makes a debate challenge (on the subject of Y) to Person 4 (a politician). Person 4 declines. Person 3 has a snarky response.
And Person 1 jumps in with "Why are you going after Person 4! You should be debating these other politicians about the evils of X!"
Which is.... delicious in its way.
Such a chain of events would make one wonder if Person 1 is having some deflection issues. And while they may be sincere about their advocacy against X, they may also be more than willing to use it as a bludgeon against rivals (who are not advocating X), while excusing the behavior of allies (who may be advocating X).
In short: "It's different when we do it."
Which is completely fair.
Though it still makes one wonder if Person 1 has.... blind spots about Issue X.
But then comes along Person 3.
Person 3 (another writer and advocate) makes a debate challenge (on the subject of Y) to Person 4 (a politician). Person 4 declines. Person 3 has a snarky response.
And Person 1 jumps in with "Why are you going after Person 4! You should be debating these other politicians about the evils of X!"
Which is.... delicious in its way.
Such a chain of events would make one wonder if Person 1 is having some deflection issues. And while they may be sincere about their advocacy against X, they may also be more than willing to use it as a bludgeon against rivals (who are not advocating X), while excusing the behavior of allies (who may be advocating X).
In short: "It's different when we do it."
No comments:
Post a Comment