To Do or not To Do

The outing game

This topic contains 67 replies, has 12 voices, and was last updated by  Davis 5 years, 4 months ago.

Viewing 8 posts - 61 through 68 (of 68 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1562

    Davis
    Moderator

    Your dictionary definition in both cases are examples of very closely (if not indistinguishable) related fallacies (ad hominem and avoiding the question via personal attack) and have nothing to do with Unseen’s creative, original and personal idiosyncraticc definitions. Try again.

    Saying it doesn’t make it so. I have already replied to this charge.

    Oh…you have certainly replied…just your last message here is also technically a reply in the sense that you typed out a string of words. I was however expecting a much better duck and dodge than this. A mere handwave.

    • This reply was modified 5 years, 4 months ago by  Davis.
    #1565

    Strega
    Moderator

    Haven’t we slipped a little off topic here? I liked the original poser, got another, anyone?

    #1572

    Davis
    Moderator

    Indeed. I was thinking about this a fair bit this weekend. The only reasonable argument (though not necessarily a good one) for outing someone like this is if the person is in the role of a leader or representative (or internally within an advocacy group) … who is working to undermine the rights of others, not as an ad hominem but as an attempt to undermine the weight his opinion/stance has in a decision making process.

    That being said … I wouldn’t want to have to formally work out an ethical argument …it would be pretty weak … especially in a deontological moral system. I wouldn’t personally out someone … but I can’t say I have much pity for the scummiest of politicians who make life hell for homosexuals and are then exposed. I do pity their family (though I pity most politician’s close family members anyway).

    • This reply was modified 5 years, 4 months ago by  Davis.
    #1574

    Davis
    Moderator

    And so…outing someone who works against your interests within a group is okay…but outing someone outside of your group who works against your interests is not okay. I can see how this might be fair…but perhaps you can explain why?

    To be clear, I was thinking of the case where someone is pretending to be in Group A, is working with group A, but is secretly in group B, and his work for Group A is really intended to undermine group A. In other words, a spy.

    I wasn’t talking about a case where (say) a reverend who appears to be straight works with a gay rights group, then it turns out he’s secretly gay. There’s no reason to out that man.

    Back to our spy: If he’s passing information, then you could leave him alone and feed him false information. If he’s an agent of influence, doing his best to sabotage the group from within, then his existence as a spy should be revealed and he should be booted the hell out.

    Now someone who is on the other side, and is forthright about it (even if he has this embawassing weeedow skeleton in his closet) is at least playing by the rules, so outing is much more likely to be an overkill/underhanded tactic. It may help you “win” the argument by silencing your opponents, rather than by…winning the argument.

    Okay. That makes sense SteveInCo.

    In the political sphere … we arent formally dealing with whose argument is rationally sound or whose argument is even right … (or even winning apublic opinion battle) especially when peoples liberties are at stake. It is a case of undermining the weight of one player in a decision making process whose position is not what he actually claims it is. It is a nasty tactic indeed outing the guy … but then voting in a decision making process to promote hate against a group that you very secretly are a part of is also full out political nastiness. Political nastiness upon political nastiness.

    Sigh

    • This reply was modified 5 years, 4 months ago by  Davis.
    #1580

    Strega
    Moderator

    @davis. I think if we first agree that outing someone is an act of aggression, then justifying circumstances appropriate for an act of aggression becomes more straightforward on a case by case basis.

    #1581

    Davis
    Moderator

    @strega

    @davis. I think if we first agree that outing someone is an act of aggression, then justifying circumstances appropriate for an act of aggression becomes more straightforward on a case by case basis.

    Couldn’t agree more.

    #1584

    SteveInCO
    Participant

    @davis

    I am much more sympathetic to outing a politician than a preacher, because only the politician can be an agent of force (as you touched on). But it had better be a politician that really goes against the group he’s fighting (gays, atheists, whatever). Occasional pandering speeches is one thing, I’ve never known a politician who didn’t pander to some of his base from time to time. Making it one’s signature issue and actively pushing legislation… well then, as far as I am concerned, let the “outing” crosshairs settle on that spot between the eyes.

    #1918

    Davis
    Moderator

    @davis

    I am much more sympathetic to outing a politician than a preacher, because only the politician can be an agent of force (as you touched on). But it had better be a politician that really goes against the group he’s fighting (gays, atheists, whatever). Occasional pandering speeches is one thing, I’ve never known a politician who didn’t pander to some of his base from time to time. Making it one’s signature issue and actively pushing legislation… well then, as far as I am concerned, let the “outing” crosshairs settle on that spot between the eyes.

    I think that’s mostly fair.

Viewing 8 posts - 61 through 68 (of 68 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.