Here is a very good article which covers the issue of choosing sides and whataboutism. It also introduces the concept of another error in moral reasoning: the false choice
http://reason.com/archives/2017/08/22/c ... a-and-fasc
"One has to take sides," Shuja Haider wrote at Jacobin, echoing other voices on the left. "There is a side that asserts our common humanity and fights fascism, racism, and hate.
It was represented in Charlottesville by the leftist groups who took to the streets to confront the far right.
The other side is the one that took innocent lives on those same streets."
Take a side? You bet. But Haider and company are trying to force a false choice. They'd have you believe that advocates of free speech, open society, tolerance, and peaceful political change have to pick between fascists with tiki torches and masked "anti-fascists" clashing with them in the streets.
But advocates of a free, open, and liberal society are a side—the correct side—
and the left-wing and right-wing thugs battling in the streets are nothing more than rival siblings from a dysfunctional illiberal family.
not sure why it was necessary to exaggerate, "The other side is the one that took innocent lives on those same streets."
from what i understand, 1 life was lost, and, in all honesty, it was more of a "flip of the coin" about "which side" caused the death.
2 deaths were from a helicopter accident
, which could have happened during routine training.
it's tragic, but the stated evil ones did not cause this accident; the stated good guys, by aggressive counter protesting without permit to be present, caused the need for helicopter presence.
no one shot the helicopter down.
the 1 car death was not planned by either side, emotions were high, bad things happen.
sure, everyone wants the driver to represent one side or the other - but, in all honesty, he could have been either - circumstances created were as culpable as anything else.
circumstances were, the stated evil ones had a permit to be present, the stated good guys did not.
in this case, the scales tip against the stated good guys - but that's not the PC narrative, so, the PC "compromise" is, both are equally at fault. Trump's stand is diplomatic.
frankly, the stated evil ones have been social outcasts all-along, they are watched carefully for any miss-steps, they are not honored or encouraged or funded by government. the suggestion this is not true is a bald-faced PC lie.
for an opposite group, supposedly well-educated
, to take up their hateful tactics, then demand to be given a pass for doing the same, "only justified" .. is, worse-than.
"when you know better, you do better," if not, you are worse-than.
but, that's not PC. the truth hurts. it always has. it always will.
Jesus did not say,
"now you know better, go ahead and continue as you were," or,
"go ahead and behave like those guys to force your way."
appleman is correct. nothing sadder than a hateful heart. prayers needed, all sides.