Discourse: RBG
Sep. 21st, 2020 11:47 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
writerkitI'm seeing a lot of "RBG has the most amazing legacy" posts and a lot of "RBG wasn't perfect" posts and then a lot of people complaining about how it is inappropriate to bring up her mistakes either because we're mourning her or because it will incite the third party voters to get all "But PERFECTION!"
That last one is flat-out wrong. The third-party voters are not susceptible to logic or reason. Not that this stops me trying to engage them with logic or reason, but I don't ever make the mistake of expecting it will get me anywhere. Curtailing what you say in the hopes of not inciting them further is a fool's errand. They're much like flat-earthers: they are getting something out of being in this small group that knows THE TRUTH, and until *that* fades, they'll dismiss any evidence you offer that their path is the wrong one.
She's a public figure. It would be inappropriate to bring up the arguments about her legacy to someone who was mourning her *personally*-- let her family and friends be sad about her death without flinging this stuff at them. But if you're going to make posts praising her, you really do need to expect that others are going to make posts criticizing her, and if the things they're saying are true, they're not wrong to do so, and it's *certainly* wrong to suggest they shouldn't be posting their opinions about her in their own internet space because of some misguided notions of appropriateness or what will and won't incite the third party voters. (You are perfectly free to say "this, my post, is not a space for criticizing her; this is a space for mourning; I will block people who criticize her here." But other people get to do what they like in their own internet spaces.)
She was an actual human person. I actually really don't like the "Her mistakes are nothing compared to her greatness!" discourse because that does ignore that she was an actual human person-- I'm not going to suggest you shouldn't be posting that if that's your opinion but I am going to say that you're wrong. We need to do better at sitting with the idea that someone can be a person who has done great things and also a person who has made mistakes and these two things are not mutually exclusive. We need to do *much* better at not turning people into larger-than-life figures. It's another take on the Great Man theory of history-- "she was this figure who did so many great things that her mistakes are inconsequential and we shall never have another like her!" isn't helpful to the cause; it's *demoralizing*. It implies we should despair at having lost her rather than fight to get another like her. It implies we can't have another like her.
It's rational, given the current political environment, to be concerned about what her loss means for the future of the court, but *that* would be true if *any* of the liberals had died.
She did amazing things. The country is, overall, worse off for having lost her. But to suggest that puts her beyond criticism is to worsen the tendency to government-by-cult-of-personality, and that's *not* a long-term good for the country.
That last one is flat-out wrong. The third-party voters are not susceptible to logic or reason. Not that this stops me trying to engage them with logic or reason, but I don't ever make the mistake of expecting it will get me anywhere. Curtailing what you say in the hopes of not inciting them further is a fool's errand. They're much like flat-earthers: they are getting something out of being in this small group that knows THE TRUTH, and until *that* fades, they'll dismiss any evidence you offer that their path is the wrong one.
She's a public figure. It would be inappropriate to bring up the arguments about her legacy to someone who was mourning her *personally*-- let her family and friends be sad about her death without flinging this stuff at them. But if you're going to make posts praising her, you really do need to expect that others are going to make posts criticizing her, and if the things they're saying are true, they're not wrong to do so, and it's *certainly* wrong to suggest they shouldn't be posting their opinions about her in their own internet space because of some misguided notions of appropriateness or what will and won't incite the third party voters. (You are perfectly free to say "this, my post, is not a space for criticizing her; this is a space for mourning; I will block people who criticize her here." But other people get to do what they like in their own internet spaces.)
She was an actual human person. I actually really don't like the "Her mistakes are nothing compared to her greatness!" discourse because that does ignore that she was an actual human person-- I'm not going to suggest you shouldn't be posting that if that's your opinion but I am going to say that you're wrong. We need to do better at sitting with the idea that someone can be a person who has done great things and also a person who has made mistakes and these two things are not mutually exclusive. We need to do *much* better at not turning people into larger-than-life figures. It's another take on the Great Man theory of history-- "she was this figure who did so many great things that her mistakes are inconsequential and we shall never have another like her!" isn't helpful to the cause; it's *demoralizing*. It implies we should despair at having lost her rather than fight to get another like her. It implies we can't have another like her.
It's rational, given the current political environment, to be concerned about what her loss means for the future of the court, but *that* would be true if *any* of the liberals had died.
She did amazing things. The country is, overall, worse off for having lost her. But to suggest that puts her beyond criticism is to worsen the tendency to government-by-cult-of-personality, and that's *not* a long-term good for the country.
