At what point is a person completely toxic to agree with about anything?

Great Debates
1

A more specific attempt to get to one of my questions from my now closed thread (RIP).

Obviously, nobody is wrong all of the time. But if, for example, Hitler had an interesting opinion about chiaroscuro, you sure as hell aren’t going to bring it up, or people will reasonably wonder if you’re a Nazi or otherwise white supremacist.

Same with Trump. If he does something random that you just happen to agree with, and you’re left of him politically, you generally won’t say so, ONE reason being that it might be read by those who don’t know your beliefs as an indication that you support Trump generally. There are lots of other people you can cite agreement with anyway, so this seems like a reasonable conclusion to make.

But suppose, just to take a hypothetical example, a B or C list musician expresses a strong political opinion, for which he is plainly retaliated against. This opinion is fairly mainstream and doesn’t inherently hurt anybody. The effects are so widespread that they hit the news, and lots of people hear about it. Those who are passionate about the political opinion sing his praises online, encouraging others to listen to his voice and reward him by buying his music.

Problem is, that musician expressed prejudices against an ethnic group before (and worse, that group is involved in his political opinion). Members of that group are upset by the above and, on the same principles as Hitler and Trump above, declare that those taking the actions in the previous paragraph are themselves prejudiced against that ethnic group, or at least don’t care about what happens to them.

This is one question that’s haunted me: Is that declaration reasonable as a generalization (as opposed to being directed at an individual)? Does it make a difference if they never heard of the prejudice incident (which was publicized at the time)? Does it matter what people do when confronted with this information? Obviously there’s a line somewhere, but this whole thing has made me wonder where it is.

Any non tangential thoughts?

2

Moderating:

Everyone,

Stay on Topic.

3

You should always re-examine your beliefs, but you also shouldn’t change them purely as a reaction to someone else.

If someone who agrees with you turns out to be a horrible person, ask yourself, “Are my beliefs the kind of beliefs only a horrible person would have?” If they are, reconsider them. Otherwise, condemn the horrible person for being horrible, while staying true to yourself.

4

True. So what about judging others as a group for the same thing?

5

In general, I wouldn’t consider it so much a matter of toxic as it is, “Does bringing this person into the discussion benefit or worsen how people see my view?” But it almost always works better as a negative than a positive, for rhetoric.

For instance, if someone says, “Even Hitler was opposed to chemical warfare,” then that can serve as a very good illustration of “This is so bad even Hitler opposed it.”

Of course, though, that can always be taken both ways. If someone says “I’m vegetarian and so was Hitler,” that looks like an endorsement of Nazism. But that could easily warp into “meat-eating is so bad, even Hitler wouldn’t eat it.”

6

I don’t think it common to say that a position is evil solely because an evil person takes the stance.

Supporting an evil person because you agree on a subject though is something else. They may be right on that subject and still overall horrible and wrong on 99% of everything else. Agreeing on one item is not enough to offset everything else and earn support.

And when the only people who agree with you are people who are awful in every other way, it may be time to consider whether or not you are the good guy in this case.

The item you are talking about is the second: a piece of shit is still a piece of shit even if you are allies on one subject, and being allies on one subject is not reason to support them in general.

If they support assuming that the POS must otherwise be fine since we agree on X, fine. Ignorance actually is a defense here. If they support in full knowledge or after learning of why they are otherwise horrible, then they are effectively saying that horribleness matters much less than the other issue, or they are even with them in agreement on it. It informs about them.

7

I think the importance of the position in question is a big factor. If, as you point out, Hitler had an interesting opinion on chiaroscuro, that’s probably not where you want to go for support of your opinion on chiaroscuro. But if, as is happening here in Corpus Christi, some hardcore MAGA elected officials take the (at least IMHO) environmentally correct position on a major issue (how to address our local water shortage), then overlooking their MAGA beliefs on other (IMHO more minor) issues is completely fine. I’m planing on voting MAGA for our city council because the mainstream Democrats* have a horrible position on the matter and the MAGAs got it right.

*. Our local offices are non-partisan. I’m guessing at their party affiliation based on who they endorse / are endorsed by on their Facebook pages.

8

I despise all things trump.

I’m glad he killed the penny. Even if, true to his f-ed up nature he did it in an arguably illegal, and certainly power-grabby, way. And for reasons that don’t really address any pertinent public policy gain; just fiat for fiat’s sake. Am I evil for thinking those things? I sure don’t think so.

Am I supporting trump because I say “Ending the penny was good for America”? I sure don’t think so. I’m supporting the outcome, not the highly idiosyncratic personal process that led to the outcome.


When it comes to the blather of celebrities, another issue arises. I may have heard of Celebrity X in 2024 when I first ran across their music or saw a movie the starred in. I neither know or care what they may have done in the previous 5, 10, or 40 years of their public career. My “relationship” with them began the day I noticed them. And includes only news from after that moment.

e.g. Somebody (probably much younger than me) who first learned of Tom Cruise while watching Top Gun II may have zero knowledge of his long-time prominence in Scientology. And may have a very favorable opinion of him as an actor. Upon discovering later about the Scientology connection they now face a moral dilemma.

But before they know about the Scientology connection, what can you as an outside observer conclude about them from their favorable opinion of Cruise? Nothing. Because you don’t know the total state of their knowledge of Cruise’s total history. The mere fact that history is “out there somewhere” on the internet doesn’t mean it’s been absorbed by any particular member of the internet’s worldwide audience.

9

I came in here to say essentially this, with the caveat that there’s no real requirement to overlook a generally toxic individual’s toxic views when acknowledging something else they happen to be right about. There’s nothing wrong with saying, e.g., ”Candidate Joan Smith is a racist and a gullible MAGA dumbfuck, but she’s right about how to handle the water shortage.”

And yes, acknowledging a toxic person’s occasional sensible views is only important when that person can make a difference in implementing those views. For instance, Hitler nowadays has no power to influence how the art world thinks about chiaroscuro, and he is not entitled to even the microscopic sliver of personal rehabilitation that might follow on somebody’s endorsing the soundness of his views on chiaroscuro. By voluntarily being a monstrously evil fucker, Hitler forfeited his claim to a balanced representation of any potentially redeeming features he might have. Let the few and minor non-odious aspects of his character rot in darkness with the rest of him.

10

Does it matter if I don’t agree with the second group’s framing of that previous incident? “Hypothetically”?

11

First of all:

I’m going to go by the “broken clock is right twice a day” philosophy. That is to say, I think it’s pretty obvious that certain people are such pieces of shit and represent specific horrific ideologies to the extent that it is largely irrelevant they might happen to agree with you on some specific unrelated topic.

Secondly:

That this might be something the OP is concerned about strikes me as a product of an engagement-based economy. Where it’s not enough to just have an opinion on something (that quite frankly, you probably have little control or influence over). You need to be SEEN as having the correct opinion, shared with the correct people, for the correct reasons.

Like I vaguely recall reading about some row between Macklemore, Ed Sheeran, and Roger Waters over some concert and their opinions on Israel vs Palestine. I don’t really care about what any of them think about a topic I’m guessing none of them are particularly expert in and I suspect it won’t change my listening patterns one way or another.

12

Humans have what is called a behavioral immune system. Its a group of behaviors humans engage in to prevent the spread of infectious diseases long before we knew what germ theory was. Like being disgusted by outsiders for example. When the Spanish first came to the Amercas, if the native Americans had had a stronger behavioral immune system (disgust and avoidance towards people who didn’t look like them, talk like them, think like them, etc) then they probably would’ve reduced their exposure to all the diseases the Spanish brought to the Americas.

However my understanding is that the behavioral immune system also extends to protecting group cohesion. If ideas come along that could break down group cohesion (by creating contradictory value systems for example), the behavioral immune system can also become activated. So if someone has opinions that violate the values of the group, and that person is accepted, those ideas will spread and reduce group cohesion (and survival chances for the group as a whole since it isn’t cohesive).

So people respond with the behavior immune system. Ridicule, removing someone’s credibility, claiming they are too mentally ill, evil or ignorant to have opinions; shunning/ignoring them, shouting them down.

I feel like in modern American culture, one value that is very deeply ingrained is you do not abuse or mistreat people who are vulnerable and marginalized within the existing sociopolitical white supremacist system. So if someone has expressed opinions that it is ok to mistreat the marginalized, it’ll strongly activate the behavioral immune system to prevent that idea from spreading to other people (shunning, ridicule, shouting them down, etc). People are terrified that the idea will gain legitimacy and spread.

The issue is that also because humans are social, the more status someone has, the more influential their opinions are. An A list musician’s opinions has far more influence than a C list musician. So the higher the musician is on the status hierarchy, the more people will activate the behavioral immune system to block their opinion.

A local garage band won’t have nearly the same impact as Taylor Swift, because nobody cares what the local garage band thinks.

13
Summary

I seriously question this point:

The left-leaning members of society think as you say.

The right-leaning ones are terrified of the idea of the marginalized being treated as humans. And right now (IOW last 10-ish years) they are the ones dominating the social media space.

So the collective shouting of the USA is mostly in favor of ignoring or destroying the marginalized. Not defending them or caring about their welfare. And oddly enough, substantially all the fatcat money permeating politics, media, and botnets is behind this POV, not the other one.

14

Moderating:

This is not really on-topic. Please reread the second post.

I’ll hide your post, don’t do this again.

Replying to someone who is not the OP, is not the same as being on-topic.

15

Bright red lipstick was a fashion trend during WWII because Hitler hated it. Today, I like chocolate. It is not really worth my time to try finding out what his opinion was about the matter.

16

I know he wouldn’t drink whiskey. It made him mean.

17

A stopped clock is right twice a day, as the saying goes. I’d be hesitant to vote for them just for those two minutes where they’r eright, when you’ve got 1438 others to consider.

But in the larger picture, agreeing with them on this issue doesn’t taint you or your opinion either.

I mean, I agree with Trump on the penny as well, and have a suspicion that doing it the way he did was the only way it would actually happen in the real world as well. Doesn’t mean I think he should have actually done it the way he did, just that I think the penny was indeed superfluous. None of that makes me a MAGA type or even a conservative.

18

It would be dumb to knee jerk oppose something just because someone else is for it. To let them have that power over your positions.

OTOH I do sometimes take a second look at my position on that basis … did I miss something?