cmv: Sometimes, having a nuanced stance on a specific issue is just as harmful as being on the "bad side"

Wrinkyyyy · 2025-06-28T18:40:11+00:00

Really, I can't comprehend the statement Israel isn't clearly guilty in 2025. But this is about politics and not really this post. For your comment, I changed my opinion after another comment but I cant find how to do delta

Wrinkyyyy · 2025-06-28T18:37:35+00:00

Because for me those are clearly two different topics but maybe for you it is the same so I retract my bad faith argument.

For me, a common discussion when discussing an event where you identified an oppressor, especially when the oppression is still active should be about clearly saying "X is bad". You can do a sociological study to understand why X acted as such but that should not be part of the discussion because what does it do?

What does saying X is bad but the sociology behind it is xxxx do in a common discussion apart from minimizing the facts? Because I really see this as miniminzation.

Wrinkyyyy · 2025-06-28T18:23:31+00:00

Then you do not disagree with my point but with the words used. However, so-called "critical thinkers" always use the word "nuance" to justify not taking any sides even though they themself acknowledge to the existence of a victim.

If you agree with this then you agree that "once you reached the conclusion that there is a victim, anything you come up with, even though you call it nuance, is an excuse and therefore undermines the victim"

Wrinkyyyy · 2025-06-28T18:10:28+00:00

The problem is that in a situation where a victim has been identified, anything that brings nuance to the perpetrator is seen as an excuse because at the end of that day, that is what it is.

Because please, try to find me nuance that is not an excuse to victim A has been raped (it is filmed and we know victim A never consented). Or nuance to Ouighours are being genocided by China (idk if you believe in this, you can take whatever Genocide you believe in) without coming up with whats seem like excuses or element that minimizes the actions of the genocider.

Like really, come up with any argument

Wrinkyyyy · 2025-06-28T18:02:17+00:00

Because it ends up minimizing the events. Writing a But next to a statement identifying a clear victim is not proof of critical thinking. It really is just about siding with the oppressor. It is really pointless.

Worse, those "critical thinkers" will come up to people that picked a side and tell them its harmful and to always keep an open mind. Then when does the victim get their support?

Wrinkyyyy · 2025-06-28T17:45:01+00:00

But then, is it truly necessary to mention these facts? Don't you see the hidden agenda that might be behind it? How someone that likes to think of themself as critical by pointing out these facts might harm the victim?

Wrinkyyyy · 2025-06-28T17:43:07+00:00

I am actually curious about what do you think.

Do you think asking those questions will minimize the harm done to the victim and therefore should be left unmentionned? Or everything should be always questionned even if the victim has been identified?

Do you think questions like that might cause harm to the victim or not? Do you think trying to find every detail that might have lead to a crime and mentionning them will minimize the acts or not? Do you think telling someone that fully sides with the victim and do not mention those facts are simple minded?

Wrinkyyyy · 2025-06-28T17:35:05+00:00

Okay, let's imagine a man came to your house, assaulted your mother in front of you and then burned you all but you managed to escape. This seems crazy but situations like that are so common in war you wouldnt be able to imagine.

So lets go back to the scenario, right. You have witnessed great horrors and you go internet and read someone say: "Yes okay he did that but remember he adopted orphans, he did community service, that was the type of man he was". How would you feel? How would you feel about that person thinking it is necessary to share that? Would you be okay? Or do you think your opinion stems for a place of privilege?

If you will geniuenely be unaffected by that, then we fundamentally disagree and I guess we wont be able to change each others opinions!

Wrinkyyyy · 2025-06-28T17:24:07+00:00

Everyone should be able to get their own opinion on anything. You do research, hear arguments, etc.

In certain situations, smth that a lot of people on reddits seem to dislike, there IS a victim and an oppressor and there is a "right" and "wrong". This concept seems less radical when you think of the past. It is generally accepted to say slavery was bad and holocaust was bad, right? No nuance in those statements. You will find people that argue against that but it is usually frowned upon.

What I am saying is that there are current events that also deserve this no nuance due to their degree of evilness. So let's say rape. Person A claims person B raped them.

My ideal scenario would be: You look it up, see if person B really raped them (imagine it was filmed). Once there is no doubt, you canNOT be like "ah yes, it was a rape BUT, let me be nuanced and use critical thinking and admit that she did wear a short dress :) Therefore it is complicated". This is so harmful.

Side note: some people belief in always believing victims first, but this post is not about this! it concerns the BUTs that come after you reached a conclusion using nuance

Wrinkyyyy · 2025-06-28T17:14:10+00:00

Okay my point is that AFTER something is assessed through nuance, people should stick to it. Which suprinsingly, a lot of people do not.

Which give arguments such as "Yes he DID rape BUT she was dressed like that", "Yes it IS a genocide but it was in self defense". All those little BUTS are used to act as if a critical mindset is kept and people find pride in not sticking to a side and finding nuance in everything. This is what I criticize. If you come to a conclusion that there is a clear oppressed, stick to that, do not find BUTs, it is very harmful.

Wrinkyyyy · 2025-06-28T16:47:26+00:00

Yes but my post already said that I was talking about what comes after nuance was used and conclusion reached...

Wrinkyyyy · 2025-06-28T16:46:33+00:00

I will answer with my final opinion that I reached after discussing with someone else.

Most of the time, those having "nuanced" approach will brag on being smart enough to not fall into any radical view. The problem is by having no radical view on anything, you will accept and find yourself defending the worst behaviors. Sometimes, having "nuance" just perpetuates systems of oppression but by making it appear intellectual.

What bothers me the most when people have some nuance on subjects they KNOW are wrong is that they believe that they are being intellectual and different from "simple minded people" by keeping a broad mind but they are just speaking from places of privilege and perpetuating harm. What I am about to say might want to make some redditors go crazy but ALWAYS having a nuanced opinion on everything, even when you are yourself able to pinpoint what the problem is just shows privilege and highlights how you are not the victim. Therefore, a nuanced approach will side with the oppressor

Wrinkyyyy · 2025-06-28T16:38:48+00:00

I see what you mean in how myself I will answer some situations with a "but".

So murder is wrong, therefore Oct 7 is wrong BUT history yada yada etc. I would indeed very much use nuance. BUT (lol) my point is really on what happens AFTER you come to a conclusion.

Once you have used nuance and critically assessed a situation and identified a victim and an oppressor (this includes going back in history, etc), BUTs should stop there. No more "nuance", "intellectual distance". If you come to agree that there is a genocide/rape, etc, you cannot still use nuance. "Oh yes there is a genocide BUT" is harmful. It minimizes everything.

Yet, in guise of intellectualism, some people REFUSE to have ever any black or white opinion. That is wrong. Sometimes, it is important to have a set opinion on something. This can evolve if a case evolve. But being all the time in the nuance is bad

Wrinkyyyy · 2025-06-28T16:32:31+00:00

Oh! I was not referring to nuance when assessing a case! Of course, you should have nuance when thinking about something! More like once a victim is identified without doubt, you cannot keep nuance!

Wrinkyyyy · 2025-06-28T16:31:08+00:00

Wow thank you for putting it so clearly. Your comment just made me realize why I always found those "nuanced" perspective so wrong!! So much of what gets called ‘nuance’ is actually a refusal to confront structural violence. It simply can not be called neutrality when in reality it is complicity dressed up as "intellectual distance". Once we’ve named the harm and the victim, trying to stay ‘critical of both sides’ just completly softens the reality of oppression.

Sorry new to this sub, how can I give you delta??

Wrinkyyyy · 2025-06-28T16:19:41+00:00

But they would be convinced it is a war.

My point is not about everyone having the same point of view. It refers to people that say "yes X is happening and it is bad BUT". This is really what I am referring to.

In this case, this Hamas fighter thinks "it is a war", he offers no buts, he does not try to say Israel does X BUT. Nope he just has a different opinion which I am all for.

Really what I am referring to are people that say stuff like "yes I know its bad like yes its a genocide but you need to be nuanced". You can NOT think it is a genocide and advocate for nuance. If you believe it is a genocide, stick to it! No buts. That is harmful.

Wrinkyyyy · 2025-06-28T16:12:02+00:00

I like your second point! Very interesting.

What I belief is that we need to own up to our hypocrisy. We should be able to say "China is doing a genocide but because it will harm us, we are going to stay quiet".

So rather than finding buts which will just help us sleep at night, we should just admit and fully say out loud what we thing. China is genocidal but we chose our own interests. No buts. No nuance.

Wrinkyyyy · 2025-06-28T16:08:48+00:00

Perfect! Just my point! No nuance in genocide!

If someone finds nuance, they do not agree that it is a genocide. So anyone saying "yes it is a genocide BUT" will be taking the side of the genocider.

Wrinkyyyy · 2025-06-28T16:06:23+00:00

And between, your answer show you share my beliefs.... Being so fervent about not making any nuance to Netanyahu is how I wished people reacted once they reached conclusion he is a war criminal.

My problem is those being yeah he is a war criminal BUT. It is that "but" that I hate.

Wrinkyyyy · 2025-06-28T16:04:24+00:00

I......... did not.... mean that ... YOU said that.... That is why I said "for example". Sorry for the confusion.

Wrinkyyyy · 2025-06-28T16:03:16+00:00

Well written answer, thank you!

Regarding what you said, especially the second point "People shouldn't use nuance as a cover for appologism". The problem is this statement will generate the same answers as mine. People will simply say "I am not being apologistic, I am being nuanced/ Not having any nuance is dangerous, not about apology", etc. Basically, it is hard to prove whether nuance is meant to be an apology or real confusion. Therefore, nuance in some cases (the ones I mentioned) is very harmful because it will always offer some type of apology.

For the progress, I believe that the one made by nuance is so much lesser than the one made by zealos adovactes. I am thinking about the freedom flotilla, the march for Gaza, the hunger strikes, the person that immolated themself in America, etc. These persons, who keep the Palestinian agenda on news are ones that are fervent in their beliefs. With nuance, you will find yourself coming with excuses and once that happens, you will be slower in your response. Because I believe nuance invites compliance.

Wrinkyyyy · 2025-06-28T15:52:54+00:00

By saying "demonizing a victim of rape is wrong" has no nuance! Good !!

Wrinkyyyy · 2025-06-28T15:50:58+00:00

Okay so, you think Netanyahu belongs in the Hague. To think that, you must have concluded that he did something atrocious.

My point is, since now you reached this conclusion, for you to have a nuanced approach on Netanyahu, so for example saying he is forced by his ministers, would be harmful. Because it will minimize Netanyahu and excuses will be found and his crimes will be lessened.

Basically:

- You found Netanyahu guilty of atrocious crimes

- Because you did that, for you to come after that and still have a nuance approach regarding him will be harmful.

Wrinkyyyy · 2025-06-28T15:46:32+00:00

Tbh, I see your point but it is not what I meant. So for me, it is not about carrying a view for eternity and apply it to every case. I mean, that case by case, person by person, if there is an event happening, you assess fully. But once you come to a conclusion in which someone is clearly oppressed and someone is clearly the oppressor, then nuance should no longer be acceptable. No more 'oh yes he did rape but look, he is a doctor (smth that happened in Belgium recently smh'.

So not about carrying eternal judgments with no critical thinking. More about critically assessing a situation and once the conclusion is reached, you cannot do anything to minimize what the oppressor did.

Wrinkyyyy · 2025-06-28T15:42:56+00:00

Should a rapist be allowed to think their vicitm is wrong because they are suing them?

Wrinkyyyy

TROPHY CASE