Here’s the thing. Only Republicans are allowed to be bullies. Democrats are the bullied. Think back to high school. I would bet even money that anyone from your high school that was a bully then is a Republican now and anyone that was bullied then is a Democrat now. Some may have crossed over; the bullied growing up refusing to be bullied and what are they now? Republicans.
So what happens the minute anyone from the bullied ranks tries to step up and be a bully? Instant hypocritical outrage form the bullies. How dare you step out of your place; only we can do that.
And one of the tools of keeping the bullied in place is what Untermensch invoked; taking the high road. While true—Gandhi seemed to use it to effective ends as well as King, at least outwardly if we ignore the more questionable practices in their personal lives—it is still a tool that keeps us in our place and the bullies in their place.
Just look at everything Trump has gotten away with that would never have been tolerated for a single news cycle had it been done by any Dem. Republicans—the bullies—have conditioned Americans into an environment where they can lie, cheat and steal while Democrats can’t even use an email server.
And no, it does not make us “just like them” for one simple reason; we can determine right from wrong. They kick someone out of their restaurant based on ingrained ignorance in regard to how much melanin is in their skin. We kick someone out of our restaurant based on a full understanding of their willing participation in disseminating fascist lies.
These are not equivalent. Or, rather, they are equal actions, with disparate justifications, which makes all the difference. Iow, it isn’t the fact that someone was kicked out of restaurant; it is the reason they were kicked out that matters. We have no issue with a proprietor kicking an abusive individual out of their restaurant or a drunk, obnoxious person out, etc. So the act of kicking someone out isn’t relevant. The only relevance is why they are being kicked out and in that regard there is no equivalence.
UM also mentioned Obama’s drone program. And, believe it or not, UM, I’m not singling you out in any of this, just riffing on what you’ve posted as they are points well made and time worn through no fault of your own.
If a proprietor were to kick Obama out for the express reason that the proprietor felt the drone program was unethical, then I think that’s a justifiable reason to refuse Obama service. If, however, he kicked him out because Obama was black, not justifiable.
Iow, an ethical reason for action is justifiable, but a bigoted/ignorant reason for action is not. Or, rather, is less justifiable, but for the same fundamental reason; by not acting on one’s ethics, it is arguably participating or in some way supporting the untethical act of the individual in question. Iow, by NOT kicking someone like Sanders out of your restaurant, an argument could be made that you are participating in or otherwise supporting or even condoning the unethical behavior. You are, after all, providing sustenance to a perpetrator of evil against mankind.
It may be tenuous, but it is certainly arguable that by feeding a nazi (and thereby contributing to their continued existence) you are contributing to the problem.
