zlacker

> but xenophobic people really love to talk about it

All too often I see this used as the standard for labelling someone a xenophobe and it becomes a classic case of begging the question. Since we all agree it's not xenophobic to speak about it, perhaps it's time we wait for actual xenophobia before making what should be serious accusations?

>>brigan+(OP)
Since some of the very first discussion of the topic in public was by the president using it as a political football alongside a trade war with China and a nontrivial amount of public fear and aversion to random people that happened to look Chinese, that well is pretty solidly poisoned at this point?

>>brigan+(OP)
It's not the worst rule of thumb as long as the social context is taken into account (i.e. it wouldn't be as appropriate here.) Heuristics do save time.

>>brigan+(OP)
What exactly are the good guys supposed to do in a situation where bad guys enjoy the truth: support the noble lie, or hiss "you are not supposed to talk about this"?

>>Viliam+XH
Perhaps not divvy up the world, or people, as "good" and "bad" and instead focus on truth?

Or perhaps consider that if truth is good, then more truth is likely to be more good, and good people would (should) embrace truth and bad guys speaking more truth would be better than bad guys using less (as surely that is one way to measure who is bad).

Given these options (and I could go on) I'm not sure why a "noble" lie or suppression of speech are the only choices, or better choices.

>>Viliam+XH
What a jewel of a comment. One could not ask for a more succinct elucidation of the term "culture war". Truth should never be subsidiary to tribal loyalties. Lies are never noble.

The world would be a better place if we opted for Option C: embrace the truth. And if you must fight "bad guys", fight what makes them bad instead of gaslighting them.