User: neadods Date: 06 Aug 2007 14:39 (UTC) Subject: (no subject)

There's a particular bit of cognitive dissonance that's in vogue right now - if a person is (or declares themselves to be) a "good" person, then they, by definition, can do no wrong.

And boy howdy, are they shocked and horrified when you call them on the issue!

It's not just fandom. It's religion - isn't it amazing how the people who call themselves "good Christians" feel free to spread hatred and bile? They have to call themselves "good Christians," you see, because you sure as hell can't tell the good *or* the Christian from their actions. And then the "good people" in politics. How could Bush be a bad President when he's the guy you'd most like to have a beer with? (Nevermind that kicking back at the bar and running a world power are two separate and unequal concepts.)

Or the "good boys" who have their "bright futures" ruined when one of those hussy girls calls them on their actions. Everybody knows that "boys will be boys" and whatever she's bitching about - if it even happened at all - she probably started.

Waitaminute, I'm ranting. But I agree with your syllogism - "I'm good. Therefore everything I do is good. If you don't agree, you're the one with the problem."

And yet, it's amazing how often we have bad problems coming from "good" people.

User: maga_dogg Date: 06 Aug 2007 14:41 (UTC) Subject: (no subject) Keyword: ecce homo

The fallacy's as often employed in attack as in self-defence:

"Why did they do [bad thing]?"
"Because, since they did a bad thing, they're clearly a Bad Person. The act explains itself."

User: jonquil Date: 06 Aug 2007 14:50 (UTC) Subject: (no subject)

Thus: Clinton was a person of Bad Character. Bush is a person of Good Character. Q.E.D.

User: fuchsoid Date: 06 Aug 2007 15:22 (UTC) Subject: (no subject)

This reminds me of 1066 and all That - "Charles II was a Bad Man but a Good King".

User: wild_irises Date: 06 Aug 2007 15:06 (UTC) Subject: (no subject)

There was a little girl
And she had a little curl
Right in the middle of her forehead
When she was good, she was very very good
And when she was bad, she was horrid.

In other words, I don't believe in the static concept of "a good person." I'm a good person (by my lights) a significant majority of the time. But that doesn't give me any kind of a free pass to let my mistakes go or stop trying to be a better person.

I think one of many issues here is that I want, legitimately, to be cut some slack if I make uncharacteristic mistakes, or mistakes in areas where I put in a lot of effort. I think a lot of other people are like me about this. It's disturbingly easy to conflate this with "don't blame me; I try," but they are not the same thing. When I put my foot in my mouth, it is my responsibility to apologize, examine, and try to figure out how not to repeat. I also get to ask for reassurance and, if I did this with someone who knows me, I get to ask them to view my blunder in context.

User: jonquil Date: 06 Aug 2007 15:13 (UTC) Subject: (no subject)

In my mind, at least, "I screwed up, I'm sorry, I don't usually do things like that" is very different from "I don't do things like that, therefore I didn't screw up."

User: fuchsoid Date: 06 Aug 2007 15:25 (UTC) Subject: (no subject)

Surely the best you can hope to say, unless you're an arrogant loon, is "I try to be as good a person/Christian/whatever as possible." The moral arrogance of some people is astonishing.

User: serrana Date: 06 Aug 2007 15:47 (UTC) Subject: (no subject)

*GRIN* Technically, none of us are "good Christians." About the best we can hope for is to be Christians who are aware of our failings at least some of the time (which is what the "sin" concept is all about).

Anyone who holds themself up as a "good Christian" has obviously not grokked those large stretches of the New Testament which are about the general cluelessness of humanity and our recurrent inability to do the right thing with any consistency.

User: fuchsoid Date: 06 Aug 2007 16:42 (UTC) Subject: (no subject)

Exactly!

User: madrobins Date: 06 Aug 2007 15:42 (UTC) Subject: (no subject)

Or even: "I don't do things like that. You must be mistaken; what I did wasn't what you say it was."

User: hackerguitar Date: 06 Aug 2007 16:08 (UTC) Subject: (no subject)

Exactly. The difference is clear; the former statement admits culpability and accepts responsibility while the latter is a three-year-old with the hand in the cookie jar saying "uh-uh!"

User: se_parsons Date: 06 Aug 2007 15:30 (UTC) Subject: (no subject) Keyword: Fancy

I ran into this illogic very early on, when I confronted the mother of the neighborhood bully. He was 14 and liked beating on me, who was 5 years younger and a girl. So I went to his mother and explained what he'd been doing to me and to my neighbors including one kid who was, at the time, 4 years old and she said...

"Oh, my BLANK, he's a GOOD BOY! He'd never do that. You're lying! You're a naughty liar!"

So, I think a lot of these folks come by it naturally. I think they've gotten away with it for a long time. People making excuses for them over and over.

Being "good" is something you have to earn every day by doing good.

So few people get that.

User: adrian_turtle Date: 06 Aug 2007 15:40 (UTC) Subject: (no subject)

It's different, but there can be social pressures pushing quite hard against acknowledging error around areas of serious offense. If a person acknowledges doing something sinful, he or she takes on the status of "sinner," and will henceforth be judged as such. (I say "sin" because I'm talking about offenses that attract massive public opprobrium, where people use terms like "zero tolerance." I'm not talking about religious principles of widespread compassion.) A racist can say or do non-racist things and still be a racist. So a person who does something marginal has a real vested interest in wanting to avoid the label of sexist or racist. (Or doctor who commits malpractice. Or sexual offender.)

User: fabu Date: 06 Aug 2007 17:09 (UTC) Subject: (no subject)

Thank you! This has been bugging me throughout several recent discussions. I think the focus on whether so-and-so is a racist/sexist/homophobe completely detracts from the *real* matter of hand - whether what so-and-so said or did deliberately or inadvertently advances a racist/sexist/homophobic agenda.

User: oyceter Date: 06 Aug 2007 17:38 (UTC) Subject: (no subject)

Oh, thank you so much for this!

Hear hear! Hear here!

User: kirbyfest Date: 06 Aug 2007 22:56 (UTC) Subject: (no subject)

Exactly this. Thank you.

User: naryasdharma Date: 06 Aug 2007 23:16 (UTC) Subject: yup.

We would all do well to remember that one of the standard crossword puzzle answers for the clue "To be human" is "err." Of course we're going to make mistakes, be thoughtless, wave our privilege around without meaning to do that, whatever; that's not at issue. What is at issue is what we do after we make a mistake, which is the point you're making (or a related one, anyway).

User: spiralsheep Date: 07 Aug 2007 00:28 (UTC) Subject: (no subject) Keyword: spiralsheep Raven Logo

Each individual action counts. It's not whether you are racist, it's that you just said something racist that matters. So suck it up, consider the action, apologize, and don't do it again.

Yes, and thank you for saying that.