Here's my issue with this Tucker.
On a macro level, if you're asking me what's "worse" for society....fighting dogs or racism, I'd say racism.
That's different than asking on a micro level who is "worse"...someone who killed some dogs or someone who said racist comments.
I think, in terms of damage to society, racism is far more damaging than rape is. The political and societal ramifications of racism and how it can play into so many things makes it something far more damaging to me. On a MACRO level, I'd say racism is "more damaging" to society than rape.
But if you asked me "Who's 'worse', a guy who raped a woman or a guy who spits at black people" I'm going to say the rapist 100 times out of a 100.
That's because the CONCEPT of Racism is more damaging, but the question isn't about the concept...it's about the individual people and their individual actions.
First, I'd argue rape is more damaging to society than racism, because rape is often sexism and violence combined. Macro, micro, no difference. A society that condones rape is worse than one that condones racism. It's a country mile in the difference between those two societies, IMO. The one that condones racism is going to be very bad, the one that condones rape is going to be extremely evil.
I honestly don't think a valid argument can be presented that can support a claim that racism is worse than rape even on a macro level when one actually looks at what condoning both would achieve.
On a macro level, a society that condones dog fighting is going to be, for all intents and purposes, a society almost identical to the one we currently live in.
Furthermore, I contend that the cruelty of dog fighting is pretty much identical to the cruelty seen in most meat farms. The difference is that people LIKE dogs.
People think Vick is "disgusting" for what essentially amounts to having a different opinion on the value of dogs. He basically saw them the same way they see a pig, or a cow, or a chicken. He had the same mentality toward dogs that a farmer has towards cows.
People don't tend to think Bob Evans is a serial killer (assuming he was a real person at some point), despite the
millions of pig deaths on his hands. Despite the massive amounts of cruelty that goes on on mega farms each year.
Far worse cruelty than what Vick did to some dogs. That is an undeniable fact. Objectively,
millions and millions of animals suffer each year as part of the meat industry while a dozen or so, maybe 100 tops, suffered as part of Vick's criminal activities.
So what's the difference, really? Ultimately the difference is that people love dogs and bacon. They love dogs, so they don't want dogs to be hurt. They love bacon, so **** the pig.
Purely arbitrary reasons, in other words.
My contention is that it is pure hypocrisy to
pretend that Vick is worse than Sterling
if you eat meat. If you eat meat, you
ARE Vick, regardless of any self-delusions you might entertain about it being OK to contribute to the death a cruelty of certain animals while it's evil to do the same for others. You are
just as responsible for animal death and cruelty for personal gain as he is.
Vegans, even non-vegan vegetarians, can argue that Vick is worse than Sterling without being hypocrites. But they are the
only ones who can do it. They are still wrong, IMO, but at least they aren't hypocrites.
I'm not a vegan, nor am I a hypocrite on this issue. If I think that Vick is worse than Sterling, then I think I'm worse than sterling.
And lets get right down to the nitty gritty. Vick was guilty of having an opinion of dogs which is akin to the opinion that most people have of pigs, or cows, or mice, or insects. Pick a person, and there is
some animal out there for which they hold an opinion akin to vick's about dogs. Few people get outraged by a kid holding a magnifying glass up to an ant hill, but that is STILL animal cruelty (contrary to popular ignorance, insects
are animals.)
Whereas Sterling was and is guilty of having an opinion about black people that is akin to the opinion most people have of criminals (you shouldn't associate with "those" people). He also is in a position of power, and sadly, he has more free speech than most people (due to supreme court rulings that money = speech).
In the grand scheme of things, I don't think people are
bad for having arbitrary groupings about which animals warrant added protection or don't warrant such added protection.
Most of us do it to some degree. Ultimately with Vick, we're just talking about a difference of opinion about where to draw the
entirely arbitrary line.
With Sterling, however, we're talking about an internal belief he has that is simply vile. He believes that some people are inferior based on an arbitrary trait. That belief is inherently vile, IMO. It's not a difference of opinion on where to draw an arbitrary line, it's a decision
to draw an arbitrary line
despite the fact that no such line should ever exist.
Here's the thing. Vick deserved to be prosecuted. His sentence was ludicrous, and people's idiotic hatred of him is hypocritical at BEST, and utterly retarded at worst, but I can support making dog fighting illegal and punishing those who do it. I also would like to see the unnecessary cruelty that occurs in farming become illegal and be prosecuted equally to dog fighting.
What Sterling did should NEVER be illegal. It's vile, disgusting, and he's a terrible person for holding those beliefs, but it's his right to be a ****ty person.
I don't need every action I feel to be vile and damaging to society to be illegal. I also don't have to think something has to damage society in order for me to think it should be illegal.
I do take those factors into account when I decide to pass judgement on a person for their actions, though. For example, I think rich people who complain about their taxes going toward helping the poor are much worse people than poor people who steal. What they are doing is more disgusting and indefensible than what the poor person is doing.
And I think that what Sterling did is more disgusting and indefensible than what Vick did. For ****'s sake, there are idiots here that are basically trying to pretend that Vick did not face consequences and faced a "hero's welcome" from the NFL after he committed his crimes. HE served two years in prison, for ****'s sake. HE was suspended indefinitely and then reinstated after demonstrating to the commish that he had reformed.
Sterling has a history of discriminatory practices. He's a piece of ****, through and through. And he's never faced any consequences for his scumbaggery. Even getting banned form the NBA is going to make him damn near a billion dollars.
So yeah, Sterling is worse. Much worse. The fact that I'm one of the few who seems to recognize it is sad to me.