That defeatist attitude is how Trump got reelected.
Don’t let perfect become the enemy of good enough, and don’t let someone else’s good enough become the enemy of “it’s a start.”
In the political scene, recognizing statehood is the first step, because it becomes state vs state instead of state vs its own people. It doesn’t erase the atrocities that happened, but it opens a door for reparations in the future.
Consider: Alice, Bob and Charlie have been bullying Devin since he was in first grade. They mock him for the color of his skin and his religion. Worse, in second grade, they used to try to convert Devin by beating him to a bloody pulp. Whenever he tries to engage with the class, they say he’s immature, to the point where Bob and Charlie decided at the beginning of fifth grade to literally carve up their bullying schedule, so they could micromanage every aspect of Devin’s school life.
This bullying got a lot worse in secondary school, however, when the three bullies changed their attitude toward another student those three used to bully: Devin’s cousin Eli. They used to rough up Eli just like Devin, but one day in the fifth grade, one of the bullies’ other friends, Frank, went too far. Frank beat up Eli so badly that Eli got left with a permanent scar on his face. Alice and Bob had to literally drag Frank off of Eli, while Frank, in his fit of rage, took swings at them, too, and literally decked Charlie, since he was the first one to try to speak up against Frank’s wrath. Frank got punished, and actually ended up working to protect Eli a few times after that. So, when Eli came back from summer vacation with new muscles, still bearing that scar that marked his own trauma, Alice, Bob and Charlie actually took Eli into their clique. He was still their underling (can’t have too many ideas floating in his head), but now, Alice, Bob and Charlie don’t actively bully Devin as much. Worse, they’ve convinced Eli that he’s “better” than Devin, and Eli and Devin have never been close. In Devin’s weakness, Eli sees that old pain, and seeks to destroy that grim reflection of his own past. He’s better than that. Better than Devin.
So now, in secondary school, Devin is constantly terrorised by Eli, with Alice, Bob and Charlie cheerfully egging Eli on at every opportunity. Alice even hands Eli different weapons and suggests new pranks, while stepping in any time Devin gets too “uppity”.
Today, Eli went too far. Eli went to his cousin’s house next door, and he started livestreaming. He brought Alice, Bob and Charlie on the stream, and started beating up Devin. He trashed Devin’s house, with Alice, Bob and Charlie actively encouraging Eli out loud on the stream. Eli started looting his room. Then, he found Devin. Alice told Eli to pick up a metal lamp, and Eli knew what to do with it. A single crack to the side of the head was all it took to floor Devin. Then, Eli. Kept. Hitting. He’s been caving Devin’s skull in with his shoe for the last five minutes, occasionally taking a break to stomp on a finger or gouge an eye. Meanwhile, Alice, Bob and Charlie are in the comments, quieting anyone who dares suggest that this is wrong. They are immediately banning anyone who likens this to Frank’s attack, saying that these people must hate Eli.
It is already clear on the video stream that, if Devin even survives this, he will be permanently mangled. In his rage, Eli just knocked over a candle, and the curtains just caught fire.
After another 15 seconds, Bob and Charlie are telling Eli to stop. They’re calling out, saying that Devin’s a person too. They won’t go so far as to liken it to what Frank did to Eli, but they are now vocally suggesting that Eli is in Devin’s house. Of course, everyone knows that Eli is in Devin’s house. But maybe, if they say “Eli, wait, you’re in Devin’s house”, and slowly build up to more bold claims (“Devin has human rights”, “you’re hurting him”, and other similarly useless and performative claims at this late juncture), then maybe people will forget that Bob and Charlie have been terrorising Devin for his entire existence, and were actively supporting Eli’s rampage until ten seconds ago.
Would you say that Bob and Charlie are “doing the right thing” by acknowledging, on stream, that Eli shouldn’t be in Devin’s house? The one that’s actively on fire?
Are Bob and Charlie “making good steps toward a solution”?
Now, Ned has been watching this stream since the beginning, and has been in the same class as everyone since kindergarten. Ned suggested trying to call the cops when Eli first decked Devin, but Alice convinced Ned that it wasn’t serious enough. Ned wants to call the cops again now, and report Alice, Bob, Charlie and Eli for their roles in what is rapidly progressing towards Murder. But Bob and Charlie are saying things that are mildly positive about Devin. Would giving their names to the cops be “letting perfect be the enemy of good”?
That’s a strawman argument. You’re attributing arbitrary personalities and intents to Alice, Bob, and Charlie. Governments are not individual people. And even if we ignore all of that, people are allowed to be wrong in the past, if they make good faith attempts to rectify things in the future. Otherwise it becomes eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, and resentment all around.
OK, first, if we’re going to try calling out specific fallacies: that’s a slippery slope fallacy, and expecting remedial action and/or accountability does not automatically lead to Hammurabi’s Deathtrap.
As regards the behaviour of world powers in a way that is perfectly analogous to bullies, with stated intentions and past actions to use as guides, what, precisely, do you believe I have ascribed as far as personalities are concerned? I can list specific events which are analogous to every event in that narrative, from sykes-picot to the crusades, the holocaust to white phosphorus raining over Gaza. Also, whose argument are you suggesting I am strawmanning? Netanyahu with his government’s stated intent to “destroy” Gaza? These governments, who’ve been too busy jailing people for calling them out for genocide to actually give a shit about, you know, the genocide?!
Other than all of that, sure, what about this exemplifies “good faith” to you? This appears, to me, to be nothing more than Realpolitik, using this move as a way to try to convince their people to stop calling out their complicity in genocide, without actually doing anything to stop the genocide. Is there some actual commitment to action that this entails, or is it just words amounting to “we support the right of Palestinians to self govern, at some point in the hypothetical future where they continue to exist as a distinct people”. There is a difference between performative words and concrete action. If they intend to wash their hands of their deeds, then words are a shitty solvent at so late a juncture.
That defeatist attitude is how Trump got reelected.
Don’t let perfect become the enemy of good enough, and don’t let someone else’s good enough become the enemy of “it’s a start.”
In the political scene, recognizing statehood is the first step, because it becomes state vs state instead of state vs its own people. It doesn’t erase the atrocities that happened, but it opens a door for reparations in the future.
Consider: Alice, Bob and Charlie have been bullying Devin since he was in first grade. They mock him for the color of his skin and his religion. Worse, in second grade, they used to try to convert Devin by beating him to a bloody pulp. Whenever he tries to engage with the class, they say he’s immature, to the point where Bob and Charlie decided at the beginning of fifth grade to literally carve up their bullying schedule, so they could micromanage every aspect of Devin’s school life.
This bullying got a lot worse in secondary school, however, when the three bullies changed their attitude toward another student those three used to bully: Devin’s cousin Eli. They used to rough up Eli just like Devin, but one day in the fifth grade, one of the bullies’ other friends, Frank, went too far. Frank beat up Eli so badly that Eli got left with a permanent scar on his face. Alice and Bob had to literally drag Frank off of Eli, while Frank, in his fit of rage, took swings at them, too, and literally decked Charlie, since he was the first one to try to speak up against Frank’s wrath. Frank got punished, and actually ended up working to protect Eli a few times after that. So, when Eli came back from summer vacation with new muscles, still bearing that scar that marked his own trauma, Alice, Bob and Charlie actually took Eli into their clique. He was still their underling (can’t have too many ideas floating in his head), but now, Alice, Bob and Charlie don’t actively bully Devin as much. Worse, they’ve convinced Eli that he’s “better” than Devin, and Eli and Devin have never been close. In Devin’s weakness, Eli sees that old pain, and seeks to destroy that grim reflection of his own past. He’s better than that. Better than Devin.
So now, in secondary school, Devin is constantly terrorised by Eli, with Alice, Bob and Charlie cheerfully egging Eli on at every opportunity. Alice even hands Eli different weapons and suggests new pranks, while stepping in any time Devin gets too “uppity”.
Today, Eli went too far. Eli went to his cousin’s house next door, and he started livestreaming. He brought Alice, Bob and Charlie on the stream, and started beating up Devin. He trashed Devin’s house, with Alice, Bob and Charlie actively encouraging Eli out loud on the stream. Eli started looting his room. Then, he found Devin. Alice told Eli to pick up a metal lamp, and Eli knew what to do with it. A single crack to the side of the head was all it took to floor Devin. Then, Eli. Kept. Hitting. He’s been caving Devin’s skull in with his shoe for the last five minutes, occasionally taking a break to stomp on a finger or gouge an eye. Meanwhile, Alice, Bob and Charlie are in the comments, quieting anyone who dares suggest that this is wrong. They are immediately banning anyone who likens this to Frank’s attack, saying that these people must hate Eli.
It is already clear on the video stream that, if Devin even survives this, he will be permanently mangled. In his rage, Eli just knocked over a candle, and the curtains just caught fire.
After another 15 seconds, Bob and Charlie are telling Eli to stop. They’re calling out, saying that Devin’s a person too. They won’t go so far as to liken it to what Frank did to Eli, but they are now vocally suggesting that Eli is in Devin’s house. Of course, everyone knows that Eli is in Devin’s house. But maybe, if they say “Eli, wait, you’re in Devin’s house”, and slowly build up to more bold claims (“Devin has human rights”, “you’re hurting him”, and other similarly useless and performative claims at this late juncture), then maybe people will forget that Bob and Charlie have been terrorising Devin for his entire existence, and were actively supporting Eli’s rampage until ten seconds ago.
Would you say that Bob and Charlie are “doing the right thing” by acknowledging, on stream, that Eli shouldn’t be in Devin’s house? The one that’s actively on fire?
Are Bob and Charlie “making good steps toward a solution”?
Now, Ned has been watching this stream since the beginning, and has been in the same class as everyone since kindergarten. Ned suggested trying to call the cops when Eli first decked Devin, but Alice convinced Ned that it wasn’t serious enough. Ned wants to call the cops again now, and report Alice, Bob, Charlie and Eli for their roles in what is rapidly progressing towards Murder. But Bob and Charlie are saying things that are mildly positive about Devin. Would giving their names to the cops be “letting perfect be the enemy of good”?
That’s a strawman argument. You’re attributing arbitrary personalities and intents to Alice, Bob, and Charlie. Governments are not individual people. And even if we ignore all of that, people are allowed to be wrong in the past, if they make good faith attempts to rectify things in the future. Otherwise it becomes eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, and resentment all around.
OK, first, if we’re going to try calling out specific fallacies: that’s a slippery slope fallacy, and expecting remedial action and/or accountability does not automatically lead to Hammurabi’s Deathtrap.
As regards the behaviour of world powers in a way that is perfectly analogous to bullies, with stated intentions and past actions to use as guides, what, precisely, do you believe I have ascribed as far as personalities are concerned? I can list specific events which are analogous to every event in that narrative, from sykes-picot to the crusades, the holocaust to white phosphorus raining over Gaza. Also, whose argument are you suggesting I am strawmanning? Netanyahu with his government’s stated intent to “destroy” Gaza? These governments, who’ve been too busy jailing people for calling them out for genocide to actually give a shit about, you know, the genocide?!
Other than all of that, sure, what about this exemplifies “good faith” to you? This appears, to me, to be nothing more than Realpolitik, using this move as a way to try to convince their people to stop calling out their complicity in genocide, without actually doing anything to stop the genocide. Is there some actual commitment to action that this entails, or is it just words amounting to “we support the right of Palestinians to self govern, at some point in the hypothetical future where they continue to exist as a distinct people”. There is a difference between performative words and concrete action. If they intend to wash their hands of their deeds, then words are a shitty solvent at so late a juncture.