3 ms·
The problem with your worldview is it leaves you totally unprepared for the scenario when the other side genuinely elects an evil or destructive person. It pres
by hsod 9y ago
The problem with your worldview is it leaves you totally unprepared for the scenario when the other side genuinely elects an evil or destructive person. It presumes there's always a rough moral equality between the two sides.
We have historical examples of evil and destructive regimes being legitimately elected. It's not impossible.
Sacca claims we are observing another example, right now, in America.
- anthuswilliams 9y agoI don't think it presumes there is moral equality at all. Rather, it's perfectly possible for an evil and destructive regime to be elected by misinformed or desperate people, and you might be wrong about voters' motives when you assume that they voted the way they did out of pure hatred and malice.
- exclusiv 9y agoIt absolutely doesn't. My view starts with assuming people with opposing viewpoints in the US aren't evil or bad people. AFTER you've engaged in discussion and their true intentions are known you can make more honest conclusions on that person or group of people. That's not what leftists do. Your comment says destructive and evil in the same sentence. Again - being destructive or making bad calls - doesn't make you a bad person or evil. Incompetent yes; evil probably not. Every politician does destructive things, especially when those things are often subjective based on your philosophy. The equivalent on the right is when they say that their opposition hates America because they have different perspectives and want to drastically change things. That's not cool either. What's interesting is that if you look at history, the leftists are by far the most evil (Mao, Stalin, etc) and it's not even close. Evil is not a word that should be thrown around loosely like the leftists do daily.