Sometimes Evil Is Evil, No Matter What The Name
Villainy and evildoing are not up for debate
Yesterday, a stranger on social media was defending Fox News host Tucker Carlson’s disturbing steadfast support of Russian President Vladimir Putin and the continual flood of atrocities being committed in Ukraine. When I pressed the self-identified Christian man and questioned how a faith-based argument could be made for this kind of advocacy, he left a reply I’ve received a few thousand times in similar situations:
“Oh, you Liberals are so tolerant, unless someone disagrees with you!”
Yeah, that’s not how this works.
One of the greatest lies people propagate is that all opinions are valid: that every position is somehow equally worthy of merit and deserving of consideration.
There have been many occasions when I’ve been discussing something with someone online, and I’ve received a similar response to the one Pastor John Pavlovitz describes above. Whether you’re a Christian or an atheist like myself, you know that such a response can mean only one thing- your correspondent has run out of verbal ammunition and has nothing to offer in his defense.
In a case such as the above, there IS no defense. How anyone- particularly someone who claims to be a Christian- can defend someone who supports the continuation of atrocities and war crimes against civilians is unimaginable. It’s a repulsive argument that can have no rational defense. The commission of atrocities and war crimes against non-combatants have no place in the conduct of war. To argue otherwise is simply inhumane and displays an appalling lack of humanity and compassion.
Then again, people making that argument too often fail to see that the victims of atrocities and war crimes are innocent civilians. The only thing separating us from them is that we’re fortunate to be safe here in America, and they’re under indiscriminate Russian fire in Ukraine.
To people like that, it’s an abstract concept. It doesn’t impact them directly, so it’s an easy argument to proffer.
In this case, the two opinions are NOT morally equivalent. Pastor Pavlovitz is correct- that’s not how this works.
We’re often led to believe that in every situation where an impasse is reached, the most humane response is to “agree to disagree” and to coexist with that person. That sounds like a noble conclusion but in reality it simply isn’t true. It’s also dangerous and in situations where people’s lives hang in the balance it can be deadly.
The idea that being open-minded means being passive, is often weaponized by Conservatives in times of conflict. It’s a tried-and-true conversation-stopper: a supposed “gotcha” attempt to shame people on the Left into silence and submission, as if loud and sustained opposition to anything they believe or amplify is somehow an inconsistency that reveals our hypocrisy.
Ridiculous.
It is not a requirement of tolerant people to tolerate everything equally. Our patience and understanding and forbearance are not infinite. There are limits.
Tolerant people do not and cannot tolerate everything equally. We understand that this argument is made by those whose “agree to disagree” response is an attempt to convince us to accept their morally inferior position.
Indeed, there are valid reasons and circumstances where “agree to disagree” is appropriate. However, when lives are at stake because one side is killing innocent civilians via atrocities and war crimes, tolerant people must take a moral stand. Some things are wrong no matter what the circumstances and no matter what one believes. Killing noncombatants in wartime is one of those things.
The internationally agreed-upon laws of war proscribe the killing of noncombatants and the deliberate targeting of non-military structures, such as what Russia is currently doing to Ukrainian power and water infrastructure. These are considered to be war crimes, as Russia continues its missile attacks against structures with no military value.
This is not the sort of thing tolerant people can “agree to disagree” on. It’s immoral, criminal, and wrong. They’re war crimes, and there’s no way to justify or sugarcoat them.
Supporting a murderous dictator as he slaughters residents of a neighboring country by the thousands for real estate and resources, is not a valid opinion.
Dehumanizing young people for their gender identity or sexual orientation and celebrating legislation preying upon them, is not a valid opinion.
Justifying a violent insurrection because you didn’t like the outcome of an election, is not a valid opinion.
Defending the murders of people of color because you have unrepentant racism that devalues the inherent worth lives, is not a valid opinion.
There are many positions that decent people should disqualify.
You’re certainly free to get behind Tucker Carlson’s support of Vladimir Putin, but that doesn’t make your position moral or even correct. On the contrary, it means you support someone who wholeheartedly advocates for a dictator and war criminal responsible for slaughtering thousands of innocent Ukrainians.
So what does that make you? Take all the time you need and consider that question. I think you’ll find that the answer does not reflect well on you or your morality.
Yes, countless perspectives on international conflicts or gun legislation or government spending or environmental dangers are within the confines of what our tolerance will accommodate and what reasonable debate will hold—but not all of them.
We can disagree on all sorts of issues without that disagreement being a deal breaker, but there are some things that as people of faith, morality, and conscience, we simply will not allow.
That isn’t a betrayal of our progressive stance, but an affirmation of it.
Racism is not up for debate.
Homophobic hatred is not worthy of equal time.
There is no defense of genocide.There are not two legitimate sides in every situation.
No, not all opinions are valid.
Some are simply wrong.
And some are wrong no matter how you slice it because there are things for which there’s simply no defense. Racism, homophobia, genocide- it’s a long and not-so-very illustrious list.
You can defend them if you choose, but that doesn’t mean there are two legitimate sides to the argument. It doesn’t mean we can, should, or will “agree to disagree.” Some things are wrong, no matter how you attempt to justify them.
I can accept that you and I will have issues that may separate us, things upon which we may not agree, and that’s OK. This would be a dull world if everyone thought and believed as I do, and I enjoy running across open-minded people who hold differing views. Now and then, they teach me things I may not have previously understood. They make me better, wiser, and more well-rounded.
I know I don’t have all the answers, and I’m always looking to learn from others. But I also know there are subjects that don’t have co-equal sides of the same coin.
If we’re honest with ourselves, I think most of us understand what those subjects are regardless of where we might fall on the theological/ideological spectrum. Reasonable people grasp this and recognize that not every situation or argument has two equal sides.
There are cases where some are right, and some are wrong, and that’s not going to change, no matter how much one might believe otherwise.
There are cases when there is no “both sides are equally valid” argument, and one needs to have the backbone to call out those who attempt to support evil and immorality. A very wise man once told me that no matter how much you try, you can’t polish a turd. In the end, the thing will still be a turd.
Evil and immorality are wrong no matter how you package and sell them because what you’ll have when all’s said and done is evil and immorality.
It’s time that good people drew a line in the sand and stood against those pushing malevolence and depravity.
Harlan Ellison said it well:
“Everybody has opinions: I have them, you have them. And we are all told from the moment we open our eyes, that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Well, that's horsepuckey, of course. We are not entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our informed opinions. Without research, without background, without understanding, it's nothing. It's just bibble-babble. It's like a fart in a wind tunnel, folks.”
That we even need to have discussions and have to state that odious opinions aren't valid is yet another reminder of just how deplorable, and deluded, some people really are.