Bright lines
Mar. 2nd, 2007 06:56 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lydyI just had a painful conversation.
Someone who was a speak-to acquaintance with some good will between us, and a lot of social discomfort, argued some time ago -- possibly the last pool party -- that there could be legitimate reasons for what happened at Abu Graib. After some shouting, and some later thought, although perhaps not calmer thought, I informed him that we are no longer on speaking terms.
He has just called with all the good will in the world on his part, wanting to give me valuable information. I established that he still felt that torture was, under some circumstances, acceptable and useful. I told him that if he wished to send me the information in email, that would be a kindness, but that I was now going to hang up.
He's the only person in the world that I'm not speaking to, the only person in the world where the resolve lasted past a few contacts. He's prone to depression, which makes what I did worse. He's a Viet Nam Vet, so he quite reasonably believes that he is speaking from an informed decision. I hated doing that. I'm shaking. But torture is wrong, and anyone who believes otherwise is not a good person. I told him that, too.
I have other friends who, I know from conversations that tiptoed around it, believe torture is acceptable under some circumstance or another. They haven't crossed the bright line, they haven't said that point blank. Are they less of a bad person because they haven't said it to me? Probably not. My excuse is that if they do not speak to me of it, then I do not have to judge. Am I copping out? To some extent.
If you are my friend, do not ever tell me that you think torture in any form is moral or useful for gaining intelligence. I will, in fact, stop speaking to you, no matter how uncomfortable it makes both of us. I will stop being your friend. It will hurt me, and if you are my friend, presumably it will hurt you. I am restricting this to conversations, both in voice and in photons. A blog, though, is not a conversation, and I consider it exempt. I'll geet back to you about comments in someone else's blog.
This may not be a brave or appropriate line, it is my bright line.
In the normal course of things, I would say I was sorry I was being so rigid. On this topic, I'm sorry I'm being so flexible.
Someone who was a speak-to acquaintance with some good will between us, and a lot of social discomfort, argued some time ago -- possibly the last pool party -- that there could be legitimate reasons for what happened at Abu Graib. After some shouting, and some later thought, although perhaps not calmer thought, I informed him that we are no longer on speaking terms.
He has just called with all the good will in the world on his part, wanting to give me valuable information. I established that he still felt that torture was, under some circumstances, acceptable and useful. I told him that if he wished to send me the information in email, that would be a kindness, but that I was now going to hang up.
He's the only person in the world that I'm not speaking to, the only person in the world where the resolve lasted past a few contacts. He's prone to depression, which makes what I did worse. He's a Viet Nam Vet, so he quite reasonably believes that he is speaking from an informed decision. I hated doing that. I'm shaking. But torture is wrong, and anyone who believes otherwise is not a good person. I told him that, too.
I have other friends who, I know from conversations that tiptoed around it, believe torture is acceptable under some circumstance or another. They haven't crossed the bright line, they haven't said that point blank. Are they less of a bad person because they haven't said it to me? Probably not. My excuse is that if they do not speak to me of it, then I do not have to judge. Am I copping out? To some extent.
If you are my friend, do not ever tell me that you think torture in any form is moral or useful for gaining intelligence. I will, in fact, stop speaking to you, no matter how uncomfortable it makes both of us. I will stop being your friend. It will hurt me, and if you are my friend, presumably it will hurt you. I am restricting this to conversations, both in voice and in photons. A blog, though, is not a conversation, and I consider it exempt. I'll geet back to you about comments in someone else's blog.
This may not be a brave or appropriate line, it is my bright line.
In the normal course of things, I would say I was sorry I was being so rigid. On this topic, I'm sorry I'm being so flexible.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: Unfair and Counter-Productive
Date: 2007-03-06 12:07 am (UTC)I'm not playing a "gotcha" game. If I haven't made my position clear, or if I've backed someone into a corner, then we retire to our separate corners and see if there's a way out of the nuclear option. I'm not looking to lose friends over it. I hope that I give very fair warning. I try to allow for mistakes. People are not usually bad people all the way through. I do believe that someone can be a bad person in some major area, and still be a friend of mine.
Debates rarely end with a firm decision on the part of one side or the other. Usually, people need some time to think about it. I am willing to discuss it with people who are willing to discuss back. That means warning them that I am not persuadable and that if they decide they are absolutely in favor of torture, I really, really don't want to hear about it. If the debate appears to be in good faith, then I'm willing to engage.
I'm dead certain about this issue, but I have been wrong about things that I'm dead certain about before. I'm willing to discuss it and do my best to listen. But only in the context of actual discussion, not in the sense of putting up two moral view points against each other, if you see what I mean. There are different types of discourse, and I hope that I'm able to tell which one. When it looks like things are shading over into one, I will warn my conversational partner how close we're coming to a bright line.
This is an issue that you and I have. I am aware of that. So far, we have always given each other enough space that I'm not uncomfortable. It's required a certain sensitivity on both our parts. You recently sent me an article on a professor who had written a book supporting the historicity of blood libel, which used almost exclusively testimony from torture victims during the Inquisition. I found this interesting, and definitely a sign that we were at least in discussion, not merely squaring off with fixed positions. That's a lot of the difference.
The reason it's in the same range as baby eating is that it requires a certain set of beliefs about the value of human beings and the proper use of authority which I think is in the same category as being a devout racist, or a member of the SLA.
It's really complicated, Moshe, which is why I have a bright line. It's because without it, I lose my balance all together.