Throughout history, some people have done good things, some people have done bad things, and most people have done good AND bad things. When the good outweighs the bad, history tends to give them a “pass” on the bad. When the bad outweighs the good, history tends to “forget” the good and focuses only on the bad. This is human nature. When people think of George Washington or Thomas Jefferson, they do not think of them as slave owners. After World War I, when German workers were bringing their weekly paychecks home in wheelbarrows due to runaway inflation, nobody remembers that it was Adolf Hitler that saved their economy and brought it under control.
Why? Adolf Hitler was evil. Monstrously evil, and that justifiably taints anything good he could have possibly done. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were men of their time, when slavery was not ‘illegal’, although many at that time knew it was ‘wrong’. There are more modern examples of this natural human trait.
John F. Kennedy brought us to the brink of nuclear annihilation and started us in Vietnam; he also took us to the moon and formed the Peace Corps. Lyndon B. Johnson is justifiably vilified for escalating the war in Viet Nam, causing the deaths of tens of thousands of American military forces. Yet he also brought civil rights to this nation, ending segregation. Richard M. Nixon had to resign due to the Watergate cover-up, lying and other “dirty tricks”. Richard Nixon also ended the war in Vietnam and opened up China to the world. William J. Clinton got head in the oval office from an intern; he also changed a record budget deficit to a record budget surplus. George W. Bush squandered that surplus by rewarding the rich and involved us in an unprovoked war in Iraq; he also… OK, I am drawing a blank on anything good he did…
So what is the point here? There are good people doing bad things, or there are bad people doing good things (depending on your viewpoint). Let us ignore for this post the extremes of evil and good people, the Adolf Hitlers and the John Wayne Gacys, the Mother Theresas and the Mahatma Ghandis. I am talking about those who fall into the middle category of doing some good and some bad.
So what should we think about these people? Do we denounce the Peace Corps? Should we refute civil rights and go back to segregation? Perhaps we should go back to “not recognizing” the billions of people in China? Reject the Declaration of Independence and become loyal subjects of the Crown?
Of course not. Thinking human beings recognize that the good things remain good, even when the individual is tainted by something bad. It should not matter if the good was done first, or the bad was done first, or even if they were concurrent. Neither should cancel out the other. Consequences for doing bad remain in effect – Presidents resign or face impeachment, individuals of less lofty status go to jail or rehab or do community service. Good deeds should still be recognized. The good remains good; the bad remains bad.
Who decides the punishment? Who conducts the trial? Who is responsible for providing “due diligence”? Do we wait for a court of law or rush off to an online blog?
You were probably wondering where “The Ugly” was going to show up. Let me be perfectly clear. Exposing Dr. Nick Dubin’s legal case is NOT ugly. I would even consider it a “good” act to help expose Dr. Dubin’s “bad” behavior.
What makes it “ugly” is when a blog then tries to associate everyone who ever said anything good about the GOOD Dr. Dubin has done and make it appear that these other people are somehow complicit in his BAD behavior. It appears that it is not enough to be disappointed, to be angry, to be upset at this man who trashed his own reputation. To condemn the action is not enough.
People in jail have friends. That’s what visiting hours are for. The law does not judge visitors for having a friend in jail; the law does not demand that they denounce the individual no matter how serious the crime. Why not? “Associating with a known criminal” CAN be a crime in itself, but only under strict conditions. If you know someone is breaking the law, and you do nothing, you can be so charged.
What if you know someone from High School and you remain in contact with him, and suddenly he is arrested for a crime you knew nothing about — are you guilty by association? What if you present an award to someone for helping others, and then five months later the story breaks that your award recipient is allegedly guilty of trading child pornography? Are you guilty of *anything*? Are the people that know of your award, or you, guilty as well?
It is understandable that many people want to disassociate with Dr. Dubin now that this allegation of his reprehensible and disgusting activity has come to light. Personally, I despise pedophiles and child pornography. This post is NOT in any way, shape, or form trying to justify, excuse, or reduce the seriousness of Dr. Dubin’s alleged crime.
What I *am* arguing against is the ugly practice of trying to rewrite history in order to discredit someone with *no* connection to the alleged crime. While the hatred of – and cyber bullying of – anyone believing in neurodiversity has been obvious for quite some time, using another’s crime to paint unaware individuals as guilty by association is despicable. And ugly.
Everyone has a right to disassociate themselves from Dr. Dubin. *Nobody* has the right to associate anyone else with being a party to his alleged criminal activity.
These are my words and opinions,
Jerry Stephen Sedlock™
Midnight In Peterborough's Blog 
My sentiments exactly. No one who ever recognized Dr. Dubin for any of his work is under any moral, ethical or legal obligation to say anything on the matter. Nick is responsible for Nick and no one else. No one knew that he was doing this and it’s a great shock to everyone. I posted a blog on my feelings and opinions only because I felt strongly on the matter and chose to do so. And I’m an individual who can make such a choice if I wish. The insinuation on any other blog, that suggests that organizations who recognized Dr. Dubin should speak out, is ridiculous. They are under NO liability to say anything. They didn’t commit the crime and they had NO idea that he was committing it either. No one else is “evil” or “bad” because they knew him. Knowing someone, especially over the internet, does not make you privy to every little detail of their lives. Nor does it make you responsible for them.
And what’s further, is how much such a blog jumped the gun by making such insinuations by posting all the extra names in tags that have nothing to do with the crime or personal life and doings of Nick Dubin. That’s as good as accusing all those people of approving of his crime and that’s not true as well as being defamatory to each person and organization named.
It’s all just an act to get attention. Even children will take negative attention over none at all. That is what the blog in reference is doing.
Well written, Jerry
Thanks for the comment, Dave.
Yes, Heather and I have noticed the latest trend of flooding the “tags” with everyone she hates even though some or all are not even mentioned in the post. So when someone does a search on “AAFA”, they are given a link to a blog post about child pornography. Such behavior is so far below ‘contemptible’ I can’t think of a word vile enough to fit. If that isn’t a *pure* example of cyber bullying, what is?
She disgusts me.
JerryStephen
btw Dave…
Remember when I published this post and ‘announced’ it on one of our FB threads? Remember when I said “it won’t take them long to take my ‘Hitler’ comment out of context”?
Unscrupulous people are soooooo easy to predict, aren’t they?
Great post, Jerry! Everyone’s entitled to put their views – and I firmly believe that people in the street (and even the media) making hasty judgments is dangerous to the truth. I mean okay, I’m not going to begrudge anyone for having an opinion. But pushing it in a manner that threatens the judicial process is not on. And worse (in the case of Nick Dubin) is that it means that in effect he won’t get a voice. Now if he really is a paedophile then I would accept that as right because that’s what scum like that deserve. But because there’s that other option of research still open and possible, why should he be silenced. It’s like he can’t defend himself further and answer the question “Why?” That’s a basic human rights abuse under treating a prisoner correctly (or something like that).
Anyone who believes that there’s no reason other than being a paedophile for downloading material like that is kidding themselves. Let the courts decide if he’s one of those pathetic pieces of trash. Let Nick Dubin explain himself.
I will say this – if Nick is asked the question and he pleads the fifth, THEN he’s a paedophile because if he was not he would have nothing to hide. My GMP award for him stays until it is PROVEN that he is a paedophile. Not before, and like you intimate, Jerry – people should not be judged for taking that sort of view.
Thank you for your post, Phil.
I agree that the legal system is where this case belongs at the moment.
I can think of several cases where the “online” media jumped on allegations and thoroughly smeared someone, only to discover days (and sometimes months) later that the person was actually innocent of what was splashed all over.
Remember the black lady (her name escapes me at the moment) who had a *partial* video of her ‘racial’ speech to the NAACP several years ago posted to some blog. The news media picked it up and spread it all over until she got fired from her government position… THEN somebody took to time to listen to the WHOLE speech and realized that the POINT of the speech was her own battle with discrimination, and how SHE was able to overcome her own prejudice. The white family she supposedly ‘abused’ was one of her strongest supporters.
But none of that mattered during the frenzy to report on and blog about this ‘horrible person’.
JerryStephen
It’s true, justice must be allowed to run it’s course. Due process exists for a reason. No one has the right to usurp it.