What "nuance and unbiased conversation". Forgive me for not giving an inch to someone who watched as millions were murdered by bombs. A factual retelling of the man's "achievements" should make any sane person cringe with disbelief that he lived to be a hundred and wasn't jailed. There's a time and place for multiple viewpoints and this is not it. Sometimes "the other side" really has no place
If you are not willing to engage with or understand the other side of the debate you will have no capacity to understand or debate the modern day Kissingers who are currently in government.
Why is the default response that I haven't "engaged or understood" the "other side of this debate"? What's the "other side" here? That I have sympathy for this man? Where is this whole thing going? Is doing research on what he's done and perpetrated and quotes by his own voice not enough? And how does that lead to me not understanding modern day Kissingers?
I refuse to give this any more headspace. This sage-like almost apathetical both-sidesing is more dangerous to me than taking a stand.
Please ask the people of Laos to "understand how it happened". A country where thousands have died after they were bombed to hell and back because of the unexploded bombs which still makes farming unviable. I don't need to understand the "how" because there is no "how" beyond imperialism which I understand perfectly well enough. There's no complex morality here
People here should really stop pretending that reading "both sides" of everything is some form of enlightenment. It is delusional
There is "understand the other side of the debate" and then there is knee jerk insistence to both side everything.
Nuance and unbiased conversation would actually allowed for conclusion that someone could do a lot more harm then good. If you insist that powerful people needs to be always talked about in good terms and discussion of bad stuff needs to contain "balancing" good stuff, you are neither unbiased nor nuanced.
How does that follow? Firstly, he likely understands the “other side of the debate”, but even if he didn’t, how does that preclude him from understanding modern Kissingers?
So what's the unbiased take going to be? "Yeah he caused a lot of damage and suffering, but sometimes he also progressed our (the US) interests without hurting anyone"?
Yes, basically. I disagree strongly with that Kissinger was anything of a balanced man, and I think it took too long for him to die, the world would have been a better place without him, and so on.
But I still think it's valuable for people who don't share that view, to make their own opinions public, as we all get richer by having multiple and sometimes opposing views out there.
Rhetoric can be used to craft any message, no matter how absurd. Eloquent defenses exist for all of the most heinous actions by men. We have to assess the viewpoint before we grant it legitimacy, not absorb it simply because it exists.
"The logical fallacy you're committing is called the Straw Man Fallacy. This fallacy occurs when someone misrepresents or distorts an opponent's argument or position, creating a weaker or exaggerated version of it."
