Skip Navigation
75 comments

  • When will we learn - "both sides" isn't something that THEY actually believe (they believe in winning, however/whatever it takes, and they are quite aware of how different that makes them from us - in fact they despise us for that), it is troll-bait meant for us to get distracted, taking time to respond to it rather than move forward with whatever ACTUALLY NEEDS DOING.

    • I'm a big believer in the "both sides" theory. Stick with me here.

      One side is a trash can fire. They do some fucked up shit.

      The other is the Springfield Tire Fire.

      Both sides suck, but one side sucks so bad that there's no way to ever fix it.

      • If we had a mathematical equation such as "1 + 1 = ?", Dems would give the answer of -1000000, while Repubs would rape your mother, then kill her (b/c she might get pregnant, you see, and the rights of the fetus mean that you have to do it... right?).

        I get the appeal of DT - to people who don't know anything at all, he made some good mouth noises, about getting rid of corruption blah blah. But never forget, a lot of people voted on him more to throw the dice because...

        MORE PEOPLE VOTED AGAINST HILLARY THAN FOR DONALD.

        Her corruption was of a special kind, chiefly in terms of the degree to which it was out in the open. Remember her emails? No not those proving that she accepted bribes from the Saudis, no not those other ones either, those other other ones where she illegally colluded with the DNC to do things like receive the questions in advance whereas Bernie was not given those, and to schedule her talks during popular sporting events when people were less likely to actually watch them. The Dems primary problem that year... was her? Also she would not allow anyone to even so much as run against her, which younger politicians NEED to do in spite of having no hope of winning in order to get their names out there for future runs, plus what if they were really that good and deserved to win the whole thing over her? (in comparison, if JEB had done that...) Oh yeah, and remember that time that the Supreme Court told her to turn over all the emails on her server, and she told them to take a hike? Okay so I'm exaggerating slightly: what she actually told them was "wait 3 days, I need to remove the ones that I don't want you to see first". THAT WAS WHAT SHE ACTUALLY SAID, IRL!!! (not necessarily word-for-word but as a paraphrase, it is accurate is it not?)

        Many LIFELONG Democrats, immigrants even who have been racially profiled by the police and thus KNOW what the conservative agenda is first-hand, still chose to vote against her, thinking that she was THAT corrupt. Maybe the problem is how we think and talk about corruption in this country? e.g. the Saudis contributing money to a literal and established charity after a vote is given in their favor may be thoroughly "corruption", but especially if it is out in the open, is it really all that bad? They are an outside entity and you can't really stop them from doing something, so this channels their attempts at bribery to a (presumably) worthy cause... But what justification can we offer as to why Bernie was treated so unfairly, and she was given that handout, that the broad populace would accept?

        Also, what would she likely have done to advance civil rights? DT made things worse, which ironically might end up making things better in the long run, but she would have just papered over the issue, unquestionably keeping things running FAR more smoothly in the short-term, but what good would that accomplish in the wider view? According to the Stoic philosophy, it's only worth attempting to fix what you CAN potentially fix, but what Dems CAN attempt to address is why that cry of outright DESPERATION of so very many independent, moderate Americans caused them to vote for him rather than her?

        e.g., to return to our question of "1 + 1 = ?", where Dems would give the answer of -1000000, while what many middle-ground Americans did was roll the dice on a random number, which while it most certainly did not result in a good outcome, at least had a chance of avoiding that known false quantity (in their minds at least, keeping in mind that many/most of these are blue-collar workers who have other interests than keeping up with politics 24/7 - remember we are talking moderates here, not die-hard Faux News watchers, who also voted for him too).

        i.e., it does no good to blame only the "other side" for all of their faults, whilst ignoring those on our own side. I think that attitude is what makes something unfixable.

      • This is a fallacy. You're either one of them or they've got you snowed with that nonsense.

    • You go high, we go low

      https://youtu.be/MAbab8aP4_A

    • Who is "they?" There certainly are people who believe both sides are authoritarian amd wish to control others (by nature of them creating laws to control others I'd say it's pretty spot on tbh.) The republicans, I don't have to go over what they want to restrict because everyone here knows it, however they pretend the democrats don't want to restrict the right to bear arms for instance, or different bodily autonomy (everyone loves fingerprints and nobody thinks we should have a right to privacy regarding them, the police can compel you to unlock a phone with a fingerprint but can't do so with a PIN because you have no rights regarding your fingerprints, because fuck you. Isn't that fucked up?)

      For those of us who are libertarian (as opposed to authoritarian) minded and don't want to control others as long as they aren't actively hurting someone (no, simply owning a gun isn't actively hurting someone just as much as simply owning a knife isn't hurting someone, you have to stab them first, or at least try) there is no "good party" that doesn't want to control your right to X. Used to be at least the libertarians did but they went off the deep end with everyone else in 2016.

      That's what is meant by "both sides," not whatever you're (the royal you're) pretending it means, i.e "both sides are exactly the same" or whatever other textbook strawman you (the royal you) decide "both sides" means. Is the Democrat party less bad than the republicans? Sure. Do they still want to control you? Yes. Does the republican party wish to control you? Yes. The republicans and the democrats constitute "both" "sides," and both of them do want to control you, so "yes, both sides."

      • In one sense, "both sides" is just a term of convenience - nobody is saying that there are not additional sides besides those two, nor that there are not sub-sides below them, nor that subtleties do not exist such as someone thinking one way but voting another, or possibly voting their conscience in the primaries prior to ultimately sorting themselves into one of the two major camps. But if say one "side" constitutes 44% of the votes, and the other "side" as well, and then the remaining ~1-2% holds let us exaggerate and say 1,000,000 sides, then given how a plurality-rules system works, all of those other sides only act as statistical noise wrt the major ones, who are the only ones that have a chance at winning.

        But more to the point, as someone in another reply below my comment linked to, that phrase refers to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism (and here's a funny meme about it) - i.e., whenever one side does something, the other side can say "yes but both sides are bad", which ofc ignores the particular point being discussed and pretty much is just an attempt to end the discussion, by diverting blame. I did not make this up - it is the literal name of something commonly used nowadays to something much older, likely predating both of our being alive by decades if not centuries, and that only in the USA but surely it was present in any democratic system where two major sides were arguing about whatever.

        In this particular instance, I was saying that the Alt-Right movement in America (I hesitate to even call that "conservative" at this point) often attempts this logical fallacy tactic - a form of bad argumentation that even if you supported their agenda I would hope you would condemn, b/c proper argumentation form helps advance a cause while improper form detracts from it. Though you are correct - both sides do point to a bad end - it is just that they do not do so equally.

        Also, Russia is fairly authoritarian itself? So with the number of Alt-Righters that are talking about re-making the USA more in that image, I would think you would be anti-Republican to a far greater degree than being anti-Democrat, even though like everyone else you are technically against both sides b/c they both legitimately do suck. After all, registering someone's fingerprint is a far lesser indignity than taking your child, or YOU, away in order to send them off to war:-|. Though possibly at least he/you would be given a gun... (whether it has any bullets inside it or not is another matter, plus there is literally one WITH BULLETS aimed at your back, prodding you to move forward).

75 comments