6 ms·

You and a friend go to a house on halloween and there's a bowl that says take one. You sheepishly take two, and your friend, after you, empties the entire bowl

by ouid 9y ago

You and a friend go to a house on halloween and there's a bowl that says take one. You sheepishly take two, and your friend, after you, empties the entire bowl into his sack. You ask of him, outraged, "How could you do such a malicious thing?!" and he responds, "Me?!?! what about you?!" This is whataboutism, and yeah, you're guilty of it. Our right wing is at least two orders of magnitude more corrupt than our left wing. Pointing fingers at "all guilty parties" means pointing fingers almost exclusively at republicans.

hitekker 9y ago
I'd caveat this by saying that corrupt democrats do exist; not every democrat is pure and truthful. Far from it, a good swathe of them are likely just politicians with their own self interest. The left is very much not sunshine and rainbows. However, you are correct in noting that the parent commenter desperately wants to paint both sides as biased, guilty, and debased, in order to excuse the wrongdoings of the cause he fervently supports. "If I can convince myself that everyone did what we did, then there's nothing wrong if we continue to do it!" Ah, projection; the mark of the politically insecure.
- theoh 9y ago
  You presumably don't mean "99% of democrats are not pure and truthful." Did you mean that apart from 1% bad apples, they are? Because what you wrote condemns 99% of them. Difference between "not everyone is pure" and "everyone is not pure".
  - hitekker 9y ago
    Good point, but I did actually mean to put down 99% of democrat leaders. To be "pure and truthful" to me is a high standard, which most of our representatives do not currently meet. I have updated my comment to clarify.
  - skinnymuch 9y ago
    Saying 99% of almost any group is not pure and truthful is probably much closer to the truth than a small fraction like 1%. And I'm assuming we aren't literally meaning completely pure and truthful either. Still has me think the original statement is closer to the truth. Democrats in America are no saints. Just compared to Republicans, in my opinion, they comparatively are much better.
ogre_magi 9y ago
Both sides perceive the outgroup as the source of all evil in the world. You could replace left/right and republican/democrat in your comment and there would be people on the other side who sincerely believe it as much as you do. Neither claim is accurate.
- hitekker 9y ago
  For those curious, I'd recommend looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance. Sometimes, right and wrong isn't always obvious. To know one from another may require effort and thought. Often times, the truth is somewhere in the middle, and so we develop instincts that ensure we can take a step back and not immediately point fingers. That's good; most of us don't think of ourselves as political idiots, where any dog whistle will make us jump through hoops, raging at some invisible enemy. But there are times when the truth clearly falls much more on one side than the other. And in those times, saying "well I thought both parties were wrong, but it turns out that one was and is right" can be a rather scary prospect! But I think it's better to be a little embarrassed than to run away from the world's problems.
  - ogre_magi 9y ago
    We probably don't share the same values, and would not be able to reach consensus on the "right side." This is an acceptable and unavoidable situation that technocrats need to learn to live with. People will want different outcomes, and will have different moral matrices. People on the left and right will each disagree with the other side's characterization of their politician's sins. Edit: Just want to note that the parent comment was substantially edited in ways that might make this comment seem weird.
    - root_axis 9y ago
      People on both sides pretty much share the same values; social issues are a big exception, but the crux of the disagreement between the right and left very often comes down to a disagreement about facts on the ground (e.g. lowering taxes on the rich creates jobs, net-neutrality harms customers and innovation, a minimally regulated market provides better and cheaper healthcare than single-payer, human behavior has no or negligible impact on climate etc)
root_axis 9y ago
> Pointing fingers at "all guilty parties" means pointing fingers almost exclusively at republicans. Almost exclusively? That's definitely an unhelpful exaggeration. I agree with the spirit of your analogy, but even invoking the term "exclusively" when referring to political behavior, qualifiers or not, is going to undermine your argument.
- ouid 9y ago
  Alright, say you had to sort them from most guilty to least guilty. I don't have the resources to do this, but start listing off republicans until you find one who is "less guilty" than a democrat. How many places on this list does that take you? Probably more than 100.
  - dominotw 9y ago
    >most guilty to least guilty Guilty of what precisely?
    - ouid 9y ago
      It is clear from the context that I am talking about corruption
      - skinnymuch 9y ago
        We have an NJ senator going through a corruption case right now. And he's seeming like he will be saved because the Supreme Court allowed certain amounts of corruption before so he's only getting off because we made some stuff legal. I'm guessing he isn't at the back of a hypothetical list. Most democrats who talk about him are also in support of him if I'm not mistaken. There's also the behind the scenes supporting of Hillay over Bernie. If not outright corruption and collusion. This doesn't mean Democrats are as bad as Republicans, but they aren't the saints you're making them out to be.
        ouid 9y ago
dominotw 9y ago
>Our right wing is at least two orders of magnitude more corrupt than our left wing. How is that?
- vog 9y ago
  Maybe this is easier to understand when looking across the borders, to the extremists. Here in Germany I often hear the phrase: "Left extremists set fire to cars, right extremists set fire to people." Of course this is oversimplified, yet there is quite some truth in it.
  - hardlianotion 9y ago
    Maybe. I think the reverse is as true.
  - fareesh 9y ago
    A right wing extremist would technically be more like someone who destroys traffic lights and stop signs. The political left believes in the idea of government and authority, the right wants to be left alone.
    - twic 9y ago
      You're talking about libertarians. There are also right-wingers who are authoritarians. Those are the ones who are more of a problem at the moment, and the ones that have, to put it mildly, historically been more of a problem in Germany.
    - vog 9y ago
      Maybe there are cultural differences between Europe and the US. "Right extremists" might be simply different here. In most European countries, right extremists call for a strong (nationalist) state and authoritarian structures, while left extremists are closer to anarchists. Here, right extremists set fire on refugee accommodations and are rude to, thrash or even murder foreign-looking people as well as homeless people. Their enemies are the strangers and the weak people. Left extremists set fire on cars and other perceived status symbols of richness, and try to fight with the police. Their enemy is the capitalism in general and the state in particular. The left extremists also did kill people, but mostly in the 1970s (see RAF [1]), while the right extremists kill lots of people all the time (see NSU [2] for a recent example). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Faction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Faction [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Underground https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Underground

by ouid 9y ago

hitekker 9y ago

I'd caveat this by saying that corrupt democrats do exist; not every democrat is pure and truthful. Far from it, a good swathe of them are likely just politicians with their own self interest. The left is very much not sunshine and rainbows. However, you are correct in noting that the parent commenter desperately wants to paint both sides as biased, guilty, and debased, in order to excuse the wrongdoings of the cause he fervently supports. "If I can convince myself that everyone did what we did, then there's nothing wrong if we continue to do it!" Ah, projection; the mark of the politically insecure.

theoh 9y ago
You presumably don't mean "99% of democrats are not pure and truthful." Did you mean that apart from 1% bad apples, they are? Because what you wrote condemns 99% of them. Difference between "not everyone is pure" and "everyone is not pure".
- hitekker 9y ago
  Good point, but I did actually mean to put down 99% of democrat leaders. To be "pure and truthful" to me is a high standard, which most of our representatives do not currently meet. I have updated my comment to clarify.
- skinnymuch 9y ago
  Saying 99% of almost any group is not pure and truthful is probably much closer to the truth than a small fraction like 1%. And I'm assuming we aren't literally meaning completely pure and truthful either. Still has me think the original statement is closer to the truth. Democrats in America are no saints. Just compared to Republicans, in my opinion, they comparatively are much better.

ogre_magi 9y ago

Both sides perceive the outgroup as the source of all evil in the world. You could replace left/right and republican/democrat in your comment and there would be people on the other side who sincerely believe it as much as you do. Neither claim is accurate.

hitekker 9y ago
For those curious, I'd recommend looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance. Sometimes, right and wrong isn't always obvious. To know one from another may require effort and thought. Often times, the truth is somewhere in the middle, and so we develop instincts that ensure we can take a step back and not immediately point fingers. That's good; most of us don't think of ourselves as political idiots, where any dog whistle will make us jump through hoops, raging at some invisible enemy. But there are times when the truth clearly falls much more on one side than the other. And in those times, saying "well I thought both parties were wrong, but it turns out that one was and is right" can be a rather scary prospect! But I think it's better to be a little embarrassed than to run away from the world's problems.
- ogre_magi 9y ago
  We probably don't share the same values, and would not be able to reach consensus on the "right side." This is an acceptable and unavoidable situation that technocrats need to learn to live with. People will want different outcomes, and will have different moral matrices. People on the left and right will each disagree with the other side's characterization of their politician's sins. Edit: Just want to note that the parent comment was substantially edited in ways that might make this comment seem weird.
  - root_axis 9y ago
    People on both sides pretty much share the same values; social issues are a big exception, but the crux of the disagreement between the right and left very often comes down to a disagreement about facts on the ground (e.g. lowering taxes on the rich creates jobs, net-neutrality harms customers and innovation, a minimally regulated market provides better and cheaper healthcare than single-payer, human behavior has no or negligible impact on climate etc)

root_axis 9y ago

> Pointing fingers at "all guilty parties" means pointing fingers almost exclusively at republicans. Almost exclusively? That's definitely an unhelpful exaggeration. I agree with the spirit of your analogy, but even invoking the term "exclusively" when referring to political behavior, qualifiers or not, is going to undermine your argument.

ouid 9y ago
Alright, say you had to sort them from most guilty to least guilty. I don't have the resources to do this, but start listing off republicans until you find one who is "less guilty" than a democrat. How many places on this list does that take you? Probably more than 100.
- dominotw 9y ago
  >most guilty to least guilty Guilty of what precisely?
  - ouid 9y ago
    It is clear from the context that I am talking about corruption
    - skinnymuch 9y ago
      We have an NJ senator going through a corruption case right now. And he's seeming like he will be saved because the Supreme Court allowed certain amounts of corruption before so he's only getting off because we made some stuff legal. I'm guessing he isn't at the back of a hypothetical list. Most democrats who talk about him are also in support of him if I'm not mistaken. There's also the behind the scenes supporting of Hillay over Bernie. If not outright corruption and collusion. This doesn't mean Democrats are as bad as Republicans, but they aren't the saints you're making them out to be.
      - ouid 9y ago

dominotw 9y ago

>Our right wing is at least two orders of magnitude more corrupt than our left wing. How is that?

vog 9y ago
Maybe this is easier to understand when looking across the borders, to the extremists. Here in Germany I often hear the phrase: "Left extremists set fire to cars, right extremists set fire to people." Of course this is oversimplified, yet there is quite some truth in it.
- hardlianotion 9y ago
  Maybe. I think the reverse is as true.
- fareesh 9y ago
  A right wing extremist would technically be more like someone who destroys traffic lights and stop signs. The political left believes in the idea of government and authority, the right wants to be left alone.
  - twic 9y ago
    You're talking about libertarians. There are also right-wingers who are authoritarians. Those are the ones who are more of a problem at the moment, and the ones that have, to put it mildly, historically been more of a problem in Germany.
  - vog 9y ago
    Maybe there are cultural differences between Europe and the US. "Right extremists" might be simply different here. In most European countries, right extremists call for a strong (nationalist) state and authoritarian structures, while left extremists are closer to anarchists. Here, right extremists set fire on refugee accommodations and are rude to, thrash or even murder foreign-looking people as well as homeless people. Their enemies are the strangers and the weak people. Left extremists set fire on cars and other perceived status symbols of richness, and try to fight with the police. Their enemy is the capitalism in general and the state in particular. The left extremists also did kill people, but mostly in the 1970s (see RAF [1]), while the right extremists kill lots of people all the time (see NSU [2] for a recent example). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Faction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Faction [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Underground https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Underground