Thursday, November 20, 2025

In praise of rebuke culture

Marjorie Taylor Greene recanting toxic politics is a fascinating example of where the thing that seems obvious to me seems totally invisible to my facebook wall.

There's a lot of "we need a big tent so we should refrain from dunking on MTG and her followers in the hopes of peeling them off into our coalition" and there's a lot of "here is her litany of toxicity and crimes, we should reject any rapprochement, to do otherwise is shortsighted and self-defeating"; and one person proposed a compromise that (at least as I understood it) was "we should tactically refrain from public dunking but privately avoid contamination." No public rebuke, but a closed door -- that's how I understood the suggestion.

As someone who comes out of a Talmudic and Maimonidean ethical tradition (and enjoys the space lasers it provides) I would suggest the opposite synthesis: lots of public rebuke, and an open door.

That is, when anybody -- anybody! Even MTG! Her horribleness makes her the perfect test case! -- declares the intention of repentance, I take that intention seriously. But I don't take it as a magic-wand-wave that cleanses and purifies their soul. In our tradition we don't really do the whole "I am a sinner on my own but a higher power has now washed me utterly clean" thing -- not even the de-theologized secular version that is popular among post-Christians. We assume that an intention to repent is just that -- an intention, a thought, a very thin and fragile flickering manifestation of the Good Urge, possibly a cynical front, but even in the best case compromised by a mix of motives, some self-serving, which is how *all* intentions of repentance begin. But we don't care that much about motives, in our tradition -- we care about results. (Not that intention is irrelevant; but it's relevant only as an antecedent of action.)

So if somebody declares themselves willing to repair the harm they've done, I feel like I have a moral obligation -- to the extent that I can do so safely -- to both guard myself against the highly probable outcome that they're going to change their mind/backslide/return to hate (if that's their track record) AND ALSO to take it seriously as an attempt to repent. Not an instant magic conversion -- a little bubbling-up of the Good Urge in a place the Evil Urge has reigned, with a hard road ahead.

And the reason that being-on-guard-against-defection and greeting-the-attempt-in-good-faith are not contradictory is that both imply the SAME action, which is to help the person begin the difficult road of acknowledging harm and making reparations.

That's why my take is the opposite of "no public rebuke, but a closed door". My take is "lots of public rebuke AS an open door."

Because if someone says "I would like to repent of doing harm" the response is "awesome! so let's go through the harm. how are you going to fix it?" -- with great skepticism that they're actually going to stick to the path, a skepticism born of empathy, because it's quite hard to admit harm, repair harm, and so on.

I think it's absolutely in good faith to say "I am delighted to hear you want to change and also I am skeptical of your capacity for change, the proof is in the pudding, show me."

Of anyone. As always, strong skepticism is powerful, cynicism is self-defeating.

I would like to nominate "rebuke culture" as a replacement for "cancel culture." Consider (on a different topic from MTG) the difference between "[celebrity] got canceled" (for those inadvisable comments they made about something they don't know much about, say) and "[celebrity] got rebuked for those comments." Rebuke can be just as scalding as "canceling". Rebuke is no more naive, no more letting down one's guard. If anything it is more raising one's guard, since "canceling" offers the illusion that the person will no go away and be someone else's problem. Rebuke does not say "you're already forgiven". It does not say "I trust you." On the contrary, rebuke says "prove it."

The difference is that rebuke is an open door. Rebuke says "do better. Show me. Start now. I'll be watching. I don't trust you until you've proven with sustained and consistent actions what you are declaring with words."

I think this is the big-tent strategy. Not "dunking" -- scoring points and being right to shore up one's own legitimacy and the purity of one's team. And not letting things slide, papering over past harm, letting bygones be bygones. Neither of those. Rebuking.

In my tradition we have a duty to rebuke: rebuke is an act of love. We don't talk about "turning the other cheek." I don't critique other people's parables and I know that that's a powerful message in context. But in my context? If someone harms you and you offer them the opportunity to harm you again (like if you literally offered them the other cheek to strike) you are not just failing YOU -- you are failing THEM. You are failing in your duty of love to them. You are refraining from rebuke where we are commanded to rebuke.

It's not even "trust but verify" -- trust is not required. But I take pronouncements of intent to repent seriously. As moments of intention. Which you're going to have to prove.

Marjorie, you've done immense harm, clawing your way to power by threatening and intimidating and spreading hate. Fix it. Show me.

[You can comment on the Facebook, Bluesky, Mastodon threads.]