The post is based on a false equivalence. The study of history is about reconstructing an accurate picture of the past, not blandly condemning Both Sides based on the accusations each faction makes of the other.
“What were the events that preceded and contributed to a genocidal event?” is a more salient question to a historical scholar than “How do we properly express our disgust at a genocide when we find evidence of one?”
He’s saying “both sides are bad” is a useless comment. And actually it’s unintelligent too, it misses the point that “both sides” dont really have anything to do with each other. Each individual should be help accountable for their actions, plain and simple. If both behave perfectly well, both behave perfectly evil, or some mix, it doesn’t really change any of the moral calculus at all.
Yeah man, I really think you’re trying to make a separate point than what the post is about.
The post is based on a false equivalence. The study of history is about reconstructing an accurate picture of the past, not blandly condemning Both Sides based on the accusations each faction makes of the other.
“What were the events that preceded and contributed to a genocidal event?” is a more salient question to a historical scholar than “How do we properly express our disgust at a genocide when we find evidence of one?”
He’s saying “both sides are bad” is a useless comment. And actually it’s unintelligent too, it misses the point that “both sides” dont really have anything to do with each other. Each individual should be help accountable for their actions, plain and simple. If both behave perfectly well, both behave perfectly evil, or some mix, it doesn’t really change any of the moral calculus at all.