Quote:
Originally Posted by elly63
One thing Conservatives often ask themselves is "what if" or put the shoe on the other foot. What if Poilievre wore the blackface would the coverage be the same? What if Poilievre made claims about being a feminist and have four? women leave his caucus would he get the same treatment or much worse? These are the questions many Conservatives ask when it comes to fairness.
|
Wait, so it's all just speculation about hypotheticals rather than a critique of the actual coverage?
But yes, I can imagine what would happen if the shoe were reversed in many cases. Like if Pierre had intentionally appoint an equal number of male and female MPs to cabinet and 4 women left. Conservatives would have claimed it was just what happens when you try to appease the woke left by appointing people who aren't qualified. We know this because many did claim that the government appointed people who weren't qualified, assuming that's an inevitable result of equal representation. And if Pierre was found to have worn black face they would have whole heartedly defended him by pointing out it was a long time ago and it wasn't an important issue.
And as a Black person I was frustrated by the dialogue surrounding the blackface incident with people claiming Trudeau was given a special pass because of favouritism or some such. In reality, people like me didn't think it was that important because Trudeau was otherwise fairly strong on social issues so there was no indication it was due to actual racism rather than just poor judgement. But for someone with a different track record, that might not have been so clear. Let's say we place everyone on a scale of say, 1-100, with 1 being the most racist person possible who commits hate crimes, has a swastika tattoo, etc, while a 100 is the most perfectly anti-racist person possible. Under say, 30 points would be low enough to be a problem and over 70 would be exceptionally good. Most people would fall somewhere in between.
When you first meet someone before you know anything about them, you default them to a 50. Neither racist nor anti-racist. Then as you learn more about them that knowledge might position them differently. Discovering they did blackface in their younger years would make for a big deduction of say 25 points. So someone who was previously a 75 would drop to a 50. Not much of an issue. But someone who was already a 50 would drop to a 25. A bit of a problem. But in both cases the people are being treated equally. They were assigned their prior point position based on the same criteria which, for a politicians often means points are added or deducted based on their policies and public statements, while the same number of points were deducted for the transgression. The fact that the final total is different is not any form of inconsistency or unfairness and it makes a lot of sense that one would be scrutinized more closely than the other. But a big part of the problem is that some people aren't capable of such nuance.