841
Both sides though.
(media.kbin.social)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Jan 2024
841 points (96.4% liked)
People Twitter
5290 readers
1378 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a tweet or similar
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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).
It can be used this way. To give an example, when someone says "The Democrats want to take your guns," to say "whatabout the republicans banning abortion, both sides" is indeed a whataboutism. However it isn't always that way even if people here like to pretend that it is, when someone says "these are the good guys and these are the bad guys," and the reply comes "actually they both are bad, maybe not equally, but they both do suck, there are no 'good guys' as they're all authoritarian, both sides" it isn't a whataboutism, it's the truth from a libertarian perspective. In fact it is often followed by whataboutisms, here mostly whattabout republicans suck more (like you said in your conclusion), and when talking to republicans it's whatabout the dems, the fact that I'm hated by supporters of both tells me that I'm doing something right, actually. It isn't said by "one side (R) to another (D)," it is said "from one side (lib, currently partyless) to one side (Auth, D&R)." More accurately, both Dems, Reps, and most people here whatever they may be, conflate anyone who says "both sides" with "their enemy side," not with a third oft ignored "live and let live" side. The side that doesn't want to ban abortions, guns, races, sexualities, etc, so long as you aren't hurting people or forcing them to do anything, the side which currently holds just about 0 political power anywhere because someone always has to stop someone else from doing something innocuous.
Okay but... OP starts off with "2 died of Ebola: They said Obama should resign." - and isn't that an example of the type of "both sides" that I meant? You aren't wrong that sometimes it is used differently, but how does that apply here? My entire first paragraph, which I put FIRST before anything else - the one beginning with "In one sense, “both sides” is just a term of convenience..." - went out of the way to acknowledge that other uses of those terms exist, so I am aware of that yes.
But then I went on to say that even MORE of your rights would be taken away under a scheme that was MORE authoritarian - e.g. you tried to say that Hillary Clinton would be more that way than Donald Trump (in some ways certainly, though not in all), and I was pointing out that life under Russian rule would be more than either of them.
I don't think anybody is saying that there ARE good guys? Just different degrees of losing:-(. The trick is to be on the "side" that loses the least?
Also, I am not certain that all conservatism sucks - there is a rather strong argument to be made that the Alt-Right has hijacked the party away from traditional conservative values, even though it pays lip service to it, and does support some of its core tenants like Anti-Abortion. For instance, most conservatives that I have ever met are not overtly racist... although the proportion of that language and rhetoric is MUCH more pronounced in the Alt-Right than it ever was (or seemed to me to be?) in the previous Tea Party, or the GWB-style progressive conservatism before that, etc. Nor am I against all Republican police or all Republican leaders - e.g. I think GWB's father was a man with significantly more integrity than his son.
I am sorry that you feel ignored. Fwiw, that is happening b/c your vote simply does not matter, unless you decide to swing over to one of the two sides. Let's say for instance that libertarians made up "1%" of the voting populace (porcupines unite!:-P). So continuing my earlier example, with 44% Dems, 44% Repubs, now 1% Libs, and the remaining 1% distributed among the other 999,999 voting blocks -> that 1% block has zero chance to "win". At best, it can join with the Repubs or the Dems and so win concessions from the side that the Libs help to win, but it can only live vicariously through others, never solely on its own - not unless it gains enough popularity to rival one of the two major superpowered "sides".
Also, people love to discuss things in caricature, and talking about the two "sides" inherently may imply a middle-ground between them, which yes I agree that Libertarians occupy? Fwiw, Lemmy tends to be fairly equal-opportunity - e.g. you can create a community and there's a goodly chance that people will see it? - so if you feel that not enough jokes are also ridiculing Libertarians, as there are ridiculing e.g. Republicans, then you could create such memes, and if they are funny then we will be proud to upvote and share them! :-P
Edit: here is one to get you started:
That is what I was responding to, asking who "they" is, because depending on who you ask it could have meant "just republicans using it as a whataboutism" or "everyone who says both sides" and typically, those critical of "both sides" fall into the second camp, and they seem to think that the republicans using it as a whataboutism is the only camp, ignoring that there could be people critical of both parties. It seems from this quote that the author thinks being critical of one side is good, and being critical of the other side too is troll-bait meant to keep the reader distracted, taking time to respond to it rather than moving forward with what actually needs doing." They seem quite clearly to think that anyone who says both sides is just "a republican in a 'both sides' mask."
Yes, whatabout Russia is worse. Where did I say Russia was better? I believe I said "I don't like any authoritarianism." Which should probably be unsurprising given that I had to list my favorite anarchist authors to join this anarchist lemmy instance.
Some people are, not me clearly (at least out of the two options given), not you seemingly (at least out of the two options given,) and maybe not even most of lemmy, but many people are.
Also the alt-right being an umbrella term that encompasses many different ideologies that are polar opposites, anarchocapitalism and theocracy, for example, some are worse for sure but some are better than typical conservatives (particularly those liberty-minded for real no foolin' ones, again I don't like authoritarianism personally, right or left.) I don't often agree with conservatives though, the only right they regularly champion is the right to arms which is just about the only thing I agree with them on. I'm sure I could find something else to agree on but mostly things like "small government, limit spending" are just lip service, so I can't count it, they turn around and expand shit and spend more just as much as the dems, just on different things.
I'm used to it, now I enjoy being a thorn in their sides lol. I do vote libertarian still even when I disagree with the party's leadership because I can safely bet they won't win anyway but it's still doing my part to give the middle finger to the other two and maybe secure a future libertarian the right to debate, or possible news coverage of future candidates. It's the only single way I have to do it, my other option is not voting and that doesn't seem to annoy the parties or their supporters as much. It's not about winning now as much as it is about showing others that there are people out there fed up with both and as the numbers keep growing so does the likelihood they'll break ranks and look at other possibilities. It's playing the long game.
Lemmy in my experience is pretty one sided, but tbf so are most other social medias. Frankly it just seems like most people are authoritarians, even including many who think they aren't.
That meme btw is hilariously accurate hahaha, I love it.
Re: taking the long view. May I say that this seems a very healthy attitude!? We really need more than simply "2 sides" - other nations have 5, 20, 50, even upwards of 100, but when you get down to "solely 2", you enter a phase shift where neither side has to DO anything, and both can simply claim that they are "not the OTHER side", and that is enough. This often leads to the death of a nation, unfortunately for those of us inside of it right now.:-(
I think you touched on something DEEP there. I think it applies to all of us - almost certainly you and I included, on topics that we haven't thought as deeply about (yet). How do we know what we know, you know? Especially when so much of it is manufactured for us, sometimes before we were born, other times fed (and even created) on-the-fly. It takes enormous efforts to break out of that cycle. And as far as I can yet tell, it offers no rewards whatsoever, beyond the pleasure of the doing itself. i.e., seeing may be believing, but so what, if you cannot DO anything about it?
For myself I don't think I am authoritarian... per se, but I probably am from your perspective. e.g. I think there should be a balance b/t the rights of the citizen and the state, and I am okay with the latter having my fingerprints. Unfortunately for me, those have already been stolen by a hack years ago (along with my SSN), so I may experience the direct consequences of this belief first-hand, though regardless of my belief that would have happened anyway? So I am not sure precisely sure what to believe, b/c implementation seems to be just as if not more crucial than theory. In any case, I try to be neither a pessimist nor an optimist, but a realist, thus I don't tend to side with libertarianism purely b/c it has no chance of ever becoming reality in the USA, ever since WWII change our direction forever. After all, once you feed bureaucracy, it literally NEVER goes away, at least of its own accord? Then again, the eventual outcome of capitalism is slavery (money=votes -> plutocracy -> hidden form of feudalism), and socialism likewise (those on top somehow always end up more "equal" than those down below, except perhaps in a very homogenous country), but in something like the USA that has a mixture of both there is the chance that the state's power can be useful in counter-balancing the excesses of corporate greed, and provide an alternate means of control other than mere dollars, especially for those who lack them in excess amounts?
But in the end it is all just humanity, thus has both its good and bad sides, and yes more than just those two:-).
Thank you, and I agree all around here.
Oh for sure
Probably lol, but tbh I'm pretty far down on that scale, it's all relative really, you seem pretty cool. I agree with most everything you said in your reply, except I do see hope in ending that beurocracy somehow, and preferably "peacefully," (i.e elections not bloodshed, unless it is necessary like a slave revolt or something.)
2 things will never change: death and taxes. So I dunno. On the other hand, bureaucracy tends to be fairly slow to adapt, so things like the internet may just run rings around it? :-P And yet as I understand it, that is a large part of what may be causing the housing crises ATM, b/c giant corps bought up houses all across the nation even far from where their headquarters are located, and yet in this "highly-connected" world that no longer matters.
And so in my mind, bureaucracy comes from both government and corporate sources, the good news being that occasionally there are crumbs that they miss that the average joe & jane can scrounge - until, that is, one of those giants decides that they want it. :-(