288
Rethink your strategy
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Feb 2025
288 points (98.3% liked)
Funny
8295 readers
1040 users here now
General rules:
- Be kind.
- All posts must make an attempt to be funny.
- Obey the general sh.itjust.works instance rules.
- No politics or political figures. There are plenty of other politics communities to choose from.
- Don't post anything grotesque or potentially illegal. Examples include pornography, gore, animal cruelty, inappropriate jokes involving kids, etc.
Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I think it is. Public figures like these become representatives of the ideas they're known for. We care about Ghandi's nonviolence, not his racism or weird sexual nonsense. The further back in history you go, the less their personal lives matter.
If you're making a movie or writing a book about them, sure, display their failures as well. But a person doing bad things doesn't make the great things they did any less great.
Imagine eliminating all philosophical figures that were eugenicists. Wed have to start over.
No ghandi didn’t fuck kids. It’s weirder than that, but he wasn’t a criminal.
I never said he was.
My point is that ghandi is a symbol, and getting into his views on Africans or whatever is entirely irrelevant to that symbol of nonviolence. It's only interesting if you're studying the man's life, for example to understand why so many Indians don't like him, but if you're referring to him as an example of how to effect change without violence (along with people like MLK Jr), it's irrelevant.
And that goes for everyone. Hunter Biden being a drug addict is irrelevant to Joe Biden's presidency. Trump having sex with escorts is irrelevant to his presidency. Bill Clinton getting a BJ from his secretary is irrelevant to his presidency. And so on. The important part of each of those scandals is whether the politician lied about them and/or abused their position to hide them, because trustworthiness is directly relevant to being a president. Whether they were good people is irrelevant.
I'm not saying we should whitewash history, I'm saying we shouldn't bring up irrelevant details when discussing figures as symbols. If you want to study an important figure's life, then those details are relevant.
And I was agreeing with you