Double standards--they suck when used to defend OR attack Ahmadinejad

[jpgray]

Ahmadinejad is a bad guy. Based on any reasonable standard of human rights, the guy is a douchebag. So when the government and the media start -finally- applying the harshest criticism to these abuses, we should support that behavior, right? Not so fast. However valid those criticisms may be, the double standard behind them should make it difficult or impossible for any progressive to feel good about his treatment. When we cozy up to similar bad guys like Abdullah in Saudi Arabia or Musharraf in Pakistan, and the government/media treat them with respect and friendship as allies, selective criticism of one bad guy (however deserved) gets hard to cheer for. We've seen such selective invective directed at Saddam and Castro as well, and it's obvious the operant motivation for that harsh tone is not any love for human rights, but rather political expediency and a desire to justify the escalation of a hostile posture.

"Would you rather Saddam be in power?" Great method for shutting down debate, no? It frames the argument in such a way to imply that that those who disagree with the government's campaign of hostility -also- disagree with any and all criticism of the targeted leader. Attempting to combat that campaign of hostility by excusing or explaining away real violations of human rights plays right into that. It's another double standard, as some over-the-top defenders of Ahmadinejad et al are excusing behavior from him that they wouldn't begin to tolerate in other world leaders. It validates the dishonest framing of the issue, since it further makes the debate about whether the -criticism- is valid. What this obscures is the -impact- of that criticism when it is unequally applied.

The impact of the government's or the media's double standard is huge, because their doubles standards are in a position to impact policy. The Ahmadinejad defenders are on the margins, their opinions do not affect policy in the same way, and therefore are far less dangerous. The goals of the two are also different. So as in every case of "both sides do it!" it's best to look at the impact and the goals of the bad reasoning when deciding which one deserves the most criticism. For example, sexism is bad coming from a man or woman, but since sexism from men is most reflected in policy, it's easy to see which one deserves bitching about.

[jpgray]

1. Kicking for reasons of pedantry

:P

[JCMach1]

2. Exactly, the tone is politically motivated

/rec

[mhatrw]

3. Goof post! n/t

[Blue-Jay]

5. Best. Typo. Ever!

(that was a typo, right?)

[mhatrw]

6. One letter away! /n/t

[Blue-Jay]

4. I think he could do with a nice tie.

Oh, and he needs to lose the Member's Only jacket.

And a shave wouldn't kill him either.

What are we talking about?

[jpgray]

9. That's "Members Only"

You apostrophic incontinent. You peripatetic thread-trivializer.

:D

[Usrename]

7. You did leave something important out of this discussion.

Good or bad, a lot of what is being said about Ahmadinejad is just infantile lies.

A university president called him a dictator, for crying out loud. A DICTATOR!

So that, to some of us, is an important aspect of this issue. Part of what makes the propaganda so effective is that some truth is blended in with half-truths and blatant lies. I mean, we can all agree that the dictator bit is not even a plausible lie, can't we?

So why tell this dictator lie in the first place? To inhibit discussion, to keep people off balance and confused? There has to be some motive; no university president is that stoopid, are they? What other lies are there about him, and if there are other lies, why? It seems like a reasonable line of inquiry to me.

[jpgray]

8. Very true, but this thread is meant to discourage even legitimate criticism under a double standard