5 ms·

I'm not saying it wasn't fraud. I'm saying that the argument has no place here when we're talking about a GOP-lead attempt to effectively destroy the internet a

I'm not saying it wasn't fraud. I'm saying that the argument has no place here when we're talking about a GOP-lead attempt to effectively destroy the internet as we know it. Any attempt to shift the debate towards 'both parties are bad' is the definition of Whataboutism and an attempt to avoid the actual topic at hand.

24gttghh 9y ago
I was not attempting to avoid the topic at hand, as evidenced by my other comment ITT discussing the actual text of the bill. I'm sorry it came across that way. In my attempt to avoid partisanship I usually end up denouncing both "sides", as I think the money in the back room is what decides the law of the land, and which party happens to accept it for a given issue.
- croon 9y ago
  You don't have to like democrats to acknowledge the fact that while they have problems, they are orders of magnitude less horrible than republicans. In the current two party system, denouncing both is giving in to a ridiculous false equivalence, as there is a clear rational choice one could make.
LyndsySimon 9y ago
> Any attempt to shift the debate towards 'both parties are bad' is the definition of Whataboutism I disagree. It's not deflection to look at your alternatives and comment on the fact that none are suitable.
- Can_Not 9y ago
  Are you saying that Democrats unanimously voted in favor of the Republican tax bill and are also anticipated to for the Republican fake Net Neutrality bill?
  - LyndsySimon 9y ago
    No - I'm saying that for many people, a Democrat that would vote the way they'd like on this issue would also vote in a way that was opposed to their interests in other matters, some of which they might consider to be more important than NN.
    - croon 9y ago
      Yeah, like keeping birth control from women, and blocking sane gun control regulation, and siphoning more money from the middle class to the rich, and keeping gay people from marrying, and scrapping health care safety nets. I disagree that that's comparable.

24gttghh 9y ago

I was not attempting to avoid the topic at hand, as evidenced by my other comment ITT discussing the actual text of the bill. I'm sorry it came across that way. In my attempt to avoid partisanship I usually end up denouncing both "sides", as I think the money in the back room is what decides the law of the land, and which party happens to accept it for a given issue.

croon 9y ago
You don't have to like democrats to acknowledge the fact that while they have problems, they are orders of magnitude less horrible than republicans. In the current two party system, denouncing both is giving in to a ridiculous false equivalence, as there is a clear rational choice one could make.

LyndsySimon 9y ago

> Any attempt to shift the debate towards 'both parties are bad' is the definition of Whataboutism I disagree. It's not deflection to look at your alternatives and comment on the fact that none are suitable.

Can_Not 9y ago
Are you saying that Democrats unanimously voted in favor of the Republican tax bill and are also anticipated to for the Republican fake Net Neutrality bill?
- LyndsySimon 9y ago
  No - I'm saying that for many people, a Democrat that would vote the way they'd like on this issue would also vote in a way that was opposed to their interests in other matters, some of which they might consider to be more important than NN.
  - croon 9y ago
    Yeah, like keeping birth control from women, and blocking sane gun control regulation, and siphoning more money from the middle class to the rich, and keeping gay people from marrying, and scrapping health care safety nets. I disagree that that's comparable.