You're viewing a single thread.
100% true. "Both sides" arguments exist SOLELY to deflect from awful things done by Republicans, or detract from positive things done by Democrats.
Not once have I seen it deployed for any other purpose.
Edit for the pedants: I should probably have not led with "100% true" before the sentence where I clearly stated my position. Although I think the delta between what I wrote after that and what is in OP is a difference without a distinction, if some of you want to feel like you really got me, you go right ahead.
How about.
Both sides are bad. Republicans are worse.
Nope, it's still used as a way to depress Democrat votes. "Both sides are bad. Republicans are worse." is used as an opener to such arguments as:
-
vote 3rd party
-
reject the system (ie don't vote)
-
accelerationism
-
do this pie-in-the-sky impossible thing first (communist revolution, etc)
It's a platform by which people are herded into arguments designed solely to depress Democrat votes, aimed squarely at Democrat voters.
Just stick with "Republicans are bad".
The "No criticism of the Democrats" strategy may help win the next election, but long term it will only increase dissatisfaction.
Criticism of Democrats is perfectly reasonable in safe Dem districts. Like Diane Feinstein. But at this point, literally any Democrat is better than literally any Republican, so if Dem control is in doubt, stick with blue no matter who.
Besides, we have a whole primary specifically to criticize Dem candidates. That's when we should be bringing this shit up.
Agreed. I just wish the democratic candidates were better.
we have a whole primary specifically to criticize Dem candidates.
2016 showed how ineffective primaries are. The 2020 modifications are lipstick on a pig.
There's this exhaustingly dumb conspiracy theory that Bernie somehow had very broad popular support despite all polls saying otherwise. Bernie didn't have the numbers.
Bernie didn't have the numbers because he didn't have the DNC support, the media support or the pre-assigned superdelegate support.
However, he did have the numbers to beat Trump which is what really counts.
He had the Republican numbers rofl
Though blacks, Hispanics, women and moderate voters consistently support either Democratic candidate when faced with Trump as the Republican alternative, there are two significant groups that Sanders wins over by much larger margins than Clinton and help him beat Trump by double digits: Republicans under 30 and Independents who do not lean toward either party.
I highly doubt these Republicans (and Republicans but too ashamed to admit it) would have done anything other than fall in line like they always have during election season.
I think you underestimate how many Republicans dislike Trump.
-
You're 100% assuming motives. "Deployed", lol.
This is like saying that because we know smoking causes lung cancer, that the ONLY reason anyone smokes is because they're trying to get lung cancer.
Review Hanlon's Razor, and stop thinking there's sinister conspiracies everywhere, it's bad for your mental health.
Intent doesn't matter. I've never seen it used differently. You are welcome to disagree.
Does it actually matter at all what the intent is if the result is Trump winning and full on reducing the United States to a fascist ethnostate?
Does it actually matter at all what the intent is
Yes. Demonizing people not because of who they are, but based on your prejudiced assumptions, is in fact bad, it turns out.
Trump winning and full on reducing the United States to a fascist ethnostate
Are you trying to get people not to take you seriously? Because insane over-the-top exaggeration like this is a very strong strategy toward that end, if so.
over-the-top exaggeration
If anything I'm under exaggerating. I'm unconcerned with bOtH sIdEs
do you have any evidence it's true?
this doesn't support the claim
Cool, let me play "guess what this probably disingenuous person would consider evidence". I'm sure that would be productive and yield fruitful results.
your accusation of disingenuousness is bad faith.
Do you have evidence for that claim?
My daily interactions on social media over the past couple of decades?
so you could link one of them that supports your claim, right?
Permanently Deleted
Without a fuckin' doubt.
no, it's bad faith
Just chucking fallacies at the wall and seeing what sticks, eh?
your accusation is bad faith.
As they say:
garbagebad faith in,garbagebad faith out.another bad faith accusation
You can look at the sea of political discussion on social media and see for yourself.
I very clearly related my own experience. You don't need to agree with me, and I don't demand that you do.
If you don't agree. (and I'm guessing you don't) I doubt very much that any singular example I link is going to change your mind, and I don't care enough about changing it to link a bunch of them for you. I frankly don't know how it's possible to engage in these sorts of discussions online and not observe this exact phenomenon, though.
my guess is that no one has ever said "both sides are bad. i hope by spreading this message, voter turnout is supressed." if such a thing has happened, it's not on me to provide evidence to support your claim. i simply disbelieve your claim, and will not believe it unless i have evidence to the contrary.
I'm OK with that. Also, those weren't my words. Good day to you.
you didn't actually make a specific claim about what was said. i would take any evidence that supports your claim.
This is what you're guilty of invincible ignorance fallacy, or better yet, the argument by pigheadedness.
the person in question simply refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given. It is not so much a fallacious tactic in argument as it is a refusal to argue in the proper sense of the word. The method used in this fallacy is either to make assertions with no consideration of objections or to simply dismiss objections by calling them excuses, conjecture, anecdotal, etc. or saying that they are proof of nothing, all without actually demonstrating how the objections fit these terms. It is similar to the ad lapidem fallacy, in which the person rejects all the evidence and logic presented, without providing any evidence or logic that could lead to a different conclusion.
no evidence has been given