Comment on [deleted]
neidu3@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
No. It is morally acceptable to ensure your own safety.
“But those who allowed nazis to come to power were doing just that!”
…no. Most of those weren’t ensuring their survival. They were ensuring their comfort (in the beginning, at least)
If a regime is targeting you or your loved ones: Lay low. If the regime is targeting someone else: Resist, especially if at worst you’re gonna get a slap on the wrist.
mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 month ago
Yup, this is why allies are so important. It’s the ally’s job to be angry and belligerent when the targeted group can’t. When the targeted group needs to keep their head down, that’s when allies should be the loudest. The ally’s largest point is that they’re beyond reprisal, because they don’t belong to the targeted group.
If someone throws a slur at your friend, that friend may not be able to speak up out of fear of further harassment and/or retaliation. Also, any anger they show will be DARVO’ed around and used to paint them as the aggressor. It will be used to confirm any stereotypes that the bigot already holds; fascists and bigots regularly weaponize decorum, by saying/doing awful things to marginalized groups while pretending to be civil. Then when those people get angry, the fascist turns it around and makes the targeted group look unreasonable. When the victim needs to maintain decorum, that’s when the ally should step up.
A great example of this in action can be found here. Rep Sarah McBride is openly transgender, and Keith Self intentionally misgenders her during her introduction. Sarah throws back a quick “thank you Madam Chair” (misgendering Self) joke in response, but then leaves it at that. Rep William Keating quickly recognizes what is going on, and asks Self to repeat the introduction using McBride’s chosen pronouns. At this point, McBride steps back and doesn’t say anything else; Any anger or belligerence she shows will be used by Self to justify further marginalizing trans people. Self tries to come up with a loose explanation, but quickly flees the situation when it becomes obvious that Keating isn’t going to let the flimsy reasoning stand. Self immediately adjourns the meeting, but he only does this because Keating is the one pushing back; If McBride had been the one to push back, Self would have dug his heels in and used it to grab anti-trans soundbites for later campaigns.
pupbiru@aussie.zone 1 month ago
i agree in principle, but that clip leaves a lot of nuance out. if taken to the small scale, pretend you’re trying to get into a bar with a trans friend and someone says some transphobic remark… yes, you have more power to make a scene than your friend, but being in a minority group can feel like a constant fight… they might not want to make a scene, to fight; they might just want to drop it and get on with their night in that moment. going above and beyond like keating did is admirable if they know it’s what mcbride wanted, but it could also have been more upsetting to a lot of people than just replying with the quick quip and getting on with their day
grueling_spool@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
A big part of the nuance you mention is that Keating was not only defending McBride, but also defending the dignity (what little there may be) of the US legislative body, and fulfilling his role as a publicly elected representative to advocate for the interests of the people he represents.
Also, while I do believe Keating deserves way more public attention and praise for this than I have seen, I would not say that he went “above and beyond” by defending McBride. He did what should have been done by anyone in his position.
mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 month ago
Sure, there’s always the “time and place” consideration to be made. If you tried to start a fight every time someone disagreed with you, you’d never get anywhere in life. But that’s really a different discussion.