Right vs. Correct
Some things in life seem counterintuitive. The headline above provides one of those dilemmas that seems like a semantical argument, but really it’s not. It’s one of those things that we know intuitively, but it took my wife to put it in phrasing that made sense. Some people are so worried about doing the correct thing that they don’t do the right thing.
It takes a wise person to know the difference and I am ashamed to say that I didn’t know the difference for most of my life. Even in the moment, it can be difficult to tell the difference. However, this seemed like a good jumping off point from my last piece on Saturday. It created some interesting conversations online and offline as it turned out.
The debate there was whether journalists are required to give every viewpoint equal consideration. It was a debate over what it means to be fair. Most of us were taught at a very young age that fair does not necessarily mean the same. Fair means everyone gets what they deserve. It is a distinction with a very clear difference.
There is also a distinction between right and correct. There is a distinction with a very clear difference. The problem with moral authority is that it is often predicated on what is correct. There is a very clear right and wrong and if you stand on the side of right then you are always correct. The problem is that you are sometimes wrong.
Understanding that paradox is the key to wisdom and happiness. Thus, we get the debate over what to do when the other side lies, cheats, steals, and bullies to get their way. It is tempting to respond in kind. There is a delicate balance between being a doormat and just being a different version of a bully. The space between those two can be wide or narrow, but the space between is the space between being able to stand on moral authority and just being another asshole.
Finding that space is hard. Finding that space is the key to moving forward. Machiavelli told us that the ends justify the means. The problem is that it is easy to confuse the two. For some, the means become an end to themselves. It brings a perverted joy to inflict pain on others. It brings a perverted joy to win no matter how hollow the victory might be. Fight like them and you become them. Sure, the results may look different, but what does it profit someone to win if they lose their soul?
Again, being a doormat isn’t the answer. This is a tough and difficult road. It means constantly checking ourselves and looking in the mirror to see if we remain someone we can love and be proud of. We can’t let the monsters win, but we also can’t allow ourselves to become a monster to win. If that happens then what have we really won?
Nick, our philosopher friend, please allow me to unpack the daily conundrum of responding to the QNP amongst us without smearing ourselves in the old never wrestle with a pig adage.
Nevuh criticize a member of the Qcumber Nazi Party, unless you are prepared hold their beer while they respond to the challenge.
Trust me. They can dive lower far longer than we can hold that beer.
1Correct vs wrong- I don’t see much of anything coming out of the Qgop being debatable as far as correct or right (or wrong). Most if not all are just plain fictional conspiratorial bullshit. Maybe someone can argue with that.
2I read something in the Oregonian this morning that was kind of interesting. It said the temperature in the Antarctic was 70 degrees warmer than normal. It was 10 degrees. So I guess someone could debate if it was warm or cold. Is either correct or right? Probably right and correct to say it’s global warming. But the Qgop? I don’t see a debate if it’s right or correct. It’s bullshit so it’s hard to be fair and balanced when reporting that. Except fux news tries to.
I probably missed the point. Not sure my comment fits what your point is, but I tried.
No, but it’s a difficult point to articulate. I’ll try it this way: correct refers to facts. I’d agree the right isn’t correct. Right refers to how we treat people. We lose a piece of our humanity when we respond to cruelty with cruelty. That’s even if we are correct in our opinion. Treating anyone with cruelty isn’t the right thing to do. I agree we shouldn’t be doormats but we can’t become them either.
3Ya, Nick, I figured as much, but liked the story about the Antarctic being 70 degrees warmer than normal and just wanted to get it in. Like is probably a bad description- it’s scary. Thought it was likely climate change deniers would probably just say “what do you mean, it’s warmer? It’s 10 degrees.” That’s something I can see from trumpf. Oops
4Actually Nick, I do understand your article. I’m probably one of those that sometimes responds more like the people I’m saying are wrong which makes me “become them.”
Nick, IOW, you’re cool bringing a knife to a gunfight…
OK, you’ll get that one chance…
We cannot any longer be nice, fair, decent, polite, rational, reasonable with these people.
5They are the deadliest enemies this nation has ever faced. And must be utterly and totally vanquished into oblivion, if not destroyed.
That’s a good counterpoint Sandridge. I guess it is the question of whether you want to take the MLK route or the Malcom X route. Since neither of them made it out of the 1960s i suppose it calls into question which method actually produced the most results.
To borrow your analogy, I don’t see it as so much bringing a knife to a gun fight as it is just choosing not to fight. It might be wishful thinking on my part. The hope is that people will see how increasingly vile the other side is and choose to repudiate it on their own without the friendly nudge.
6You are wishfully thinking, Nick. While maybe some on the right have and will repudiate the craziest in their party, at the same time, more have become even crazier, like nothing I can remember in my 71 years. Those are the ones needing pushback, hard pushback. Examples were on display in the Senate this week. And for them, Jan 6 was just free speech. Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire, rhetorically. Choosing “not to fight” won’t cut it. IMHO
7Nick @6, The MLK/MX analogy isn’t close, that was [and still is] a very asymmetric conflict that they were engaged in, black v. white.
Dems v. Rethugs is much closer to parity in strength, however measured.
Or should be, if our side were equally, –realistically–, and fully engaged, which is usually my main point.
As far as the ‘knife’, my original intended analogy was to have you bringing a bouquet of flowers to the gunfight, but didn’t want to overdo it ;] .
As far as the “wishful thinking”. IMHO, yes, it is; sadly.
That very vileness is an irresistible attractant to hordes of people, and the hordes are growing every day.
The irrefutable proof of this is in the steady rise in their numbers, actions, power and influence, in nearly every sector of ‘Murikan life. Just look at the news and numbers since [particularly] 2015; although it began long before [I go back to the 50-60s seeing the JBS’ rising influence].
I’m a bit of a geographicnut, I constantly look up locations on Wikipedia, maps, and charts [I have several marine ‘chartplotters’ both software and hardware units]. When looking at a populated US [usually] place in Wiki, I always look at the voting demos [and economic/demo info]. In many places looked at, the Rethugs have made steady gains over the last few decades [all you need do is look at some red/blue maps and #lege seats].
A really really scary factor is the metastasizing Rethug spread into the Hispanic demographic. I’ve been raving about this for years.
8Just as in ‘today’s news’, the idiot Democratic leadership is constantly pandering to the black community [I know this language is too strong].
And as I see it, nearly ignoring the LatinX community. EG- the current SCOTUS nom. Where are the balancing ones? They notice. I’m not trying to stir up things, but imo there’s a growing imbalance that we Dems will pay for.
[and I’m an old Anglo who’s been called a racist many times, sometimes correctly; so am only an imperfect observer. And spent most of my years in STX and the Valley, where blacks are a tiny minority, and Anglos only a bigger minority.].
This misplaced emphasis is a surely fatal political error. There are numerically far more Hispanics in the US, with rapidly growing numbers, while black numbers remain essentially static over the years. Not to say that we don’t need –everyone– included.
Don’t like to be cynical, but most successful political entities ‘do the numbers’…
Sandridge, agree that Democrats are missing the mark with Hispanics, but the numbers you shared include both Latinos and Hispanics. There are differences and the repugnantican party has targeted Latinos especially by equating Democrats to the socialist countries many Latinos fled. Effective. It’s sad that the way immigrants have been badmouthed by repugnanticans doesn’t stick in their craw as well. But bottom line, Democrats have missed the mark with both groups. I would hope they (we’ll) step up addressing that, but certainly not at the expense of Black Americans. All 3 groups (Hispanics, Latinos and Black Americans and immigrants) are very important to the country and party future. I would love to see more Latino and Hispanic judges including the SCOTUS. Wish there was a way to do that and get rid of team Thomas.
9This is a touchy subject. There are a number of Hispanic/Latino people that are socially conservative and religious. The Christian Left is a thing but a number of progressives have been hostile to religion. Sadly, when that happens you are forcing many to choose between their faith and the common interests you have. Most progressive planks are rooted in Christian teachings. So, you don’t have to repudiate religion to preach progressive points.
10Here is an historical example, which I strongly recommend to any and all liberals and leftists. It will make you squirm. (Some of the best-written recent history I’ve encountered, too.)
https://www.amazon.com/Bad-Faith-Teachers-Liberalism-McCarthyism-ebook/dp/B07BHQFY6G/ref=sr_1_8?crid=2VW1CYYWN2Z9A&keywords=bad+faith&qid=1648308511&s=books&sprefix=bad+faith+%2Cstripbooks%2C56&sr=1-8
11