71–80 of 94 posts
There is a suburb of Cape Town called Bishopscourt. It is high up on the hill, near the botanical garden, and filled with Anglophone old money, trees and mansions. (1) It gets it's name of course from the "official residence of the Archbishop of Cape Town" (Anglican / Church of England). It was of course a "whites only" area under Apartheid until 1991 (2). Black people there could be assumed to be house or garden ser…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I dont think anyone is ignoring it, its a Heated topic and actually quite an issue in South African politics now ( https://english.alaraby.co.uk/news/protests-greet-miss-south... ) Wikipedia has a page where the general issues are enumerated https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analo... . Historically scrutiny originally fueled because Israel is seen as a supporter of the apartheid system even after…
It's still ignored by a lot of people who do not hesitate to argue apartheid is bad, yet can't stomach the comparison. Tutu's willingness to call Israeli government policy apartheid, alongside other prominent apartheid fighters, like e.g. Arthur Goldreich, matters greatly in legitimising resistence against those policies. Even so every new person or organisation deciding to come out and saying this is still met with…
An outcome like the above is of course clearly completely unacceptble, locally and in the west.
However Israel cannot allow even those territories to become independant because that would require giving up security control, control over valuable land and other natural resources like water. No nation gives away its territory easily!
So current status quo with the territories must be maintained!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
It’s civil disobedience. I’m not sure of how SA works , but in the U.S civil disobedience was regularly used to challenge laws during the 20th century. Going into white only areas and living there, forcing de segregation was one such technique.
'If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.' Rest in peace.
[flagged]
'If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.' Rest in peace.
[flagged]
This is absolutist nonsense. It takes the truth and makes it imply something false.
Vaccines make you less likely to become infected, and decrease viral load if you do get infected. So, even if you do become infected, the infection is milder and you are less likely to pass it on. In all these ways, (less likely to catch, milder infection, less likely to transmit) they provide protection to you and those around you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
I think there are two elements at play. Consider a person of colour living in the eponymous mansion of the city's wealthiest neighborhood. For a racist government, it's a symbol of defiance. For other people of colour, who have been told by the government their whole lives that they are worthless, good only for manual labour -- one of their own is living in the oldest mansion in the fanciest neighborhood in town. It'…
'If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.' Rest in peace.
Remember that aphorisms like that don't only apply to your side. Every time you say something like that, imagine that someone whose sense of injustice is opposite to yours is using it. Maybe they think that abortion is literal murder. Maybe it's the 1950s and they think some poor black guy has raped a white girl (because how would she ever consent?) Maybe they're a Russian living in Ukraine and they think the Ukraini…
This line of reasoning only makes sense if you think that moral positions have no qualities other than how strongly people hold them. If, on the other hand, you believe that two people can hold two opposing moral positions with equal strength, and one of them can be correct while the other is incorrect, this line of reasoning doesn’t make sense.
Of course, this was obviously Tutu’s position. Tutu probably didn’t think “before you go and help the mouse, realize that doing so might be just as upsetting to the elephant as your neutrality would have been to the mouse.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> woodruffw - ...all of which appear to be benign diplomatic cables or press releases. Can you state more explicitly what you're trying to imply? Not implying anything? Can you explain why you think that? Do you think that about every fact that you are presented?
You should read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevance_theory