Contesting exceptions legitimates the very rule being fought
Evidence
The diabolical aspect of this setting was that the beliefs and convictions it sanctioned, and the actions it encouraged, supplied legitimacy to the Nazi masterplan and made it digestible to most, the victims included. While fighting for petty privileges, exempted statuses or simply the stay of execution which the overall design of destruction provided for, the victims and those who tried to help them tacitly accepted the premises of the design. Arguing, for example, that this or that person has a right to be exempt from the professional bar on the ground of his past merits, one admitted in practice that without such special merit, the professional bar was uncontestable. — Zygmunt Bauman, Modernity and the Holocaust, 370
Categorization
- DEEPTHINKING: The micrological complicity of resistance: even fighting the system’s categories, victims supply its legitimacy.
- XREF: Directly parallels how demands for individual inclusion in liberal frameworks (e.g., individual Muslim professionals) tacitly accept the excluding premises of the whole. — connects to: Courts sometimes reach wrong outcomes to avoid bad future rules — Frederick Schauer, Thinking Like a Lawyer, 548; Avoiding unjust legal outcomes has multiple distinct mechanisms, not just interpretation — Frederick Schauer, Thinking Like a Lawyer, 693; Fighting for exemptions tacitly legitimizes the general exclusionary rule. — Zygmunt Bauman, Modernity and the Holocaust, 372 (+1 more)
Related
Broader Connections
- Courts sometimes reach wrong outcomes to avoid bad future rules
#exemplifies(0.82) — Frederick Schauer, Thinking Like a Lawyer, 548 - Avoiding unjust legal outcomes has multiple distinct mechanisms, not just interpretation
#expands(0.75) — Frederick Schauer, Thinking Like a Lawyer, 693