A brave and principled stand ... on the wrong side.
There's an issue that I actually genuinely consider an open question and I'm wondering what you all think about it.
Everyone admires people willing to bravely stand up on the correct but unpopular side of controversial issues. People who I stand by their principles and do what they think is right even when the pressure is on them to bend. Rosa Parks fighting discrimination on the Montgomery bus. Erin Brokovich fighting water contamination in California. The Tank Guy in Tienamen Square. There's something tremendously powerful and resonant in these people, stories, and images.
And then there's the other side. People willing to bravely stand up on the wrong and unpopular side of controversial issues. People who stand by their principles and do what they think is right even when the pressure is on them to bend ... and they're totally wrong. George Wallace defying federal marshalls in the schoolhouse door. William Jennings Bryan in the Scopes trial. Ken Ham defying the scientific community with young-earth biostatic creationism. Moms who home-school their kids rather than allow them to be vaccinated.
My totally non-rhetorical question is: does a brave and principled stand on the wrong side of an issue least partially redeem the person, or does it only magnify the wrongness? Is a stubborn and uncompromising stand on principle always an admirable thing, or only when the principle itself is admirable?
Many people I've talked to seem to think yes. "At least they have the courage to stand by their convictions, even if those convictions are wrong." Many people see a principled stand as admirable, even if the principle they're standing for is not.
I do not share this view. I think that some opinions are idiotic, some people are double idiots when they ignore the broad consensus of reasonable people and stick to their incredibly unpopular guns, and these people get extra bonus stupidity multipliers when they still do not take a clue from the arrival of the no ice cream crew.
This is a subjective question, and we don't have to agree, but I'm curious what other people think about this.
Poll
Note: for the purposes of this poll you don't have to agree with me, you just have to disagree with the person taking the principled stand. For instance if you believe that the earth is actually 6,000 years old you can use someone like Lord Kelvin and his 24-400 million year estimate as an example of someone taking a proud and principled stand on something that's wrong.
Everyone admires people willing to bravely stand up on the correct but unpopular side of controversial issues. People who I stand by their principles and do what they think is right even when the pressure is on them to bend. Rosa Parks fighting discrimination on the Montgomery bus. Erin Brokovich fighting water contamination in California. The Tank Guy in Tienamen Square. There's something tremendously powerful and resonant in these people, stories, and images.
And then there's the other side. People willing to bravely stand up on the wrong and unpopular side of controversial issues. People who stand by their principles and do what they think is right even when the pressure is on them to bend ... and they're totally wrong. George Wallace defying federal marshalls in the schoolhouse door. William Jennings Bryan in the Scopes trial. Ken Ham defying the scientific community with young-earth biostatic creationism. Moms who home-school their kids rather than allow them to be vaccinated.
My totally non-rhetorical question is: does a brave and principled stand on the wrong side of an issue least partially redeem the person, or does it only magnify the wrongness? Is a stubborn and uncompromising stand on principle always an admirable thing, or only when the principle itself is admirable?
Many people I've talked to seem to think yes. "At least they have the courage to stand by their convictions, even if those convictions are wrong." Many people see a principled stand as admirable, even if the principle they're standing for is not.
I do not share this view. I think that some opinions are idiotic, some people are double idiots when they ignore the broad consensus of reasonable people and stick to their incredibly unpopular guns, and these people get extra bonus stupidity multipliers when they still do not take a clue from the arrival of the no ice cream crew.
This is a subjective question, and we don't have to agree, but I'm curious what other people think about this.
Poll
Note: for the purposes of this poll you don't have to agree with me, you just have to disagree with the person taking the principled stand. For instance if you believe that the earth is actually 6,000 years old you can use someone like Lord Kelvin and his 24-400 million year estimate as an example of someone taking a proud and principled stand on something that's wrong.