Fair enough, maybe not everything. I meant everything about point 1., not point 2. Thanks for the clarification. We are essentially saying the same thing, I just didn’t clarify what I deemed as wholly valid.
This conversation right here is a very provocative response to the dialogue that was indirectly instigating by Son of Baldwin.
Trying to classify what he was attempting to provoke is difficult because Provocations are unpredictable. One never knows where they will end up, but we have ended up here; and it’s a good place, I think. And, I think this is what he wanted. I have no way of knowing for sure however.
But I honestly think this is what he was trying to provoke, a deep and honest reflection among anyone who dared to read Let Them All Die, because you have to ask yourself; Am I so angry and frustrated about the current situation that I can endorse immoral and evil or apathetic actions? And, if I am, what does that say about me?
You are someone who can easily answer this question in the negative. You might be, however, in the minority. As for me…it’s a far more complicated question. I think it is for a lot of people. The globe over, societies advocate not only, apathy towards life that we consider problematic or unwanted, but outright destruction of that life. Son of Baldwin ideas are hardly new and groundbreaking in and of themselves. When Osama Bin Laden was assassinated by Navy Seals, Americans held parades. I thought that was a little sick. You shouldn’t be gleeful about anyone’s violent demise.
What makes Son of Baldwin’s call for not even violence (but simply inaction) so alarming is the WHO.
In America, we don’t entertain publicly the idea of apathy towards white life, and certainly not empowered white male life. That is so against the rules, right? It’s a real attempt to disrupt the status quo.
And I think that’s why the responses are so extreme and so polarized — not because we as a society value the sanctity of human life. We clearly do not. And so for me, all Son of Baldwin is saying is what is good for the gander is now going to be applied to the goose. People went ape.
I find that fascinating, because there is, for me, a deep hypocrisy in such extreme opposition of being subjected to the rules, that others have been subjected to, for centuries. Again and again and again, most whites refuse to deal with that. So to me, all this white protests just simply sounds like:
Don’t even think of doing to me, what I’ve done to you without conscience or remorse for centuries! Don’t even THINK about it!”
And white Americans have been essentially saying this for centuries, which is why Nat Turner is such a legendary American hero for some and pure villain for others. This is an old American problem, Son of Baldwin is speaking to. Very old. This is not new.
Well…I am the type that I will certainly think about it. Because I like to think about everything. Now action is something else entirely. I am never going to take anyone’s life.
That’s clearly wrong. But to let an evil destructive person die? Like in this one film, where a weapons dealer was choking, and a priest stood by, for a good minute or so, before he decided to step in and save him. Finally, he intervened and saved him. He was a priest and was morally obligated to recognize the sanctity of the evil man’s life, I guess. But would I make that choice? I don’t know. It would not be a clear cut decision for me. If faced with the choice of letting a killer die? I don’t have to kill him. I don’t have to get my hands dirty. All I have to do is let him be. Do I recognize the value of all human life? Should any and every life be saved, at all costs? No one believes this, and they are lying if they say they do. If you could sacrifice one life to save a hundred or a thousand, what would you do? What if the life you had to sacrifice was an infants? What if the life to be sacrificed was a pedophile who tortured small children sexually and had no intention of stopping?
Basically, this is the sort of moral dilemma Son of Baldwin is presenting.
As for Jane, yes I gather that I am misunderstanding something. But, I don’t think it is what you suggested. Then again maybe it is.
But you are right, the dialogue around, Let them Fucking Die, is polarizing for a number of reasons. One of which (I think) is that many Blacks are feeling what Son of Baldwin is articulating, and whites find this alarming (understandably.) Because such views do make whites less safe. They make us all less safe. But Blacks are already so unsafe, and many feel like what is there to lose? If this is where we are at as a society, telling Son of Baldwin “Shut up! Shut up!” Isn’t going to fix that. Which is my point.
The same is true for the other side of the same coin, white supremacists who feel they have been wronged, and need to kill to be righted. Attempting to silence them, has only made the problem fester and get worse. I don’t think there is any avoiding any of it, at this point. I really don’t. As I said before this is an old American problem.
I think it is up to those of us in the middle, to really discuss these issues and allow people to see both sides of it. I think you get it. I think I do too. I think Jane does as well.
Yes, Let Them Fucking Die is dangerous. But we are in this Red Zone anyway; and so I think we have to listen to the people screaming at the fringes. We have to understand why people resort to extremism, because it is only in the understanding that people can heal.
The world is in great need of middle pathers, these days. Which is why I am not saying Son of Baldwin is right, but I am not saying he is wrong either. Point 1 has to be addressed, before anyone can hypocritically yammer on and on and on about the dangers of point 2. Ignore point 1, and much of what ever else you say falls on deaf ears.
But I have enjoyed your commentary. It is well reasoned, thoughtful, truly insightful; and you have forced me to try and see this issue from another perspective. I do not want to lose that ability in these crazy, polarizing times, so I thank you for this.