Stalin, Hitler, Mao, etc. are what happens when we start putting a rating on lies, justice, murder, etc. Yes, these are the extremes. But that doesn't justify a slippery slope that isn't - yet? - one of these historical extremes.
"Oh. Our lies and murders aren't as bad as {insert culture panic button here}" continue to work well for the elites, not so much so for the rest of us.
How about we put a cultural / sociopolitical price on say the USA's three-quarters of a trillion DoD budget? Certainly there's plenty of injustice that could be addressed with that type of $. But instead we buy into the status quo narrative?
That's not working. The point is, let's get our own house in order, instead of manufacturing a narrative that is bold-faced, shameless, hyprocricy.
You're framing this as a dichotomy between slippery slopes. We must either pretend that all sins are equivalent and thus give cover to the worst sins or we must use the fact that some sins are worse than others to allow the "better" side to backslide. The obvious alternative is to hold all parties account according to the severity of their guilt, and demand that everyone does better. In other words, the guilt of one party doesn't absolve the other or (as children understand) "two wrongs don't make a right".
"Oh. Our lies and murders aren't as bad as {insert culture panic button here}" continue to work well for the elites, not so much so for the rest of us.
How about we put a cultural / sociopolitical price on say the USA's three-quarters of a trillion DoD budget? Certainly there's plenty of injustice that could be addressed with that type of $. But instead we buy into the status quo narrative?
That's not working. The point is, let's get our own house in order, instead of manufacturing a narrative that is bold-faced, shameless, hyprocricy.