3 ms·

Does this kind of "both sidesism" really engage with the reality of the situation or does it just sound "smart" because it is generically claims that there is s

by ihm 6y ago

Does this kind of "both sidesism" really engage with the reality of the situation or does it just sound "smart" because it is generically claims that there is something complex about the issue? Here is this comment applied to the situation in America ~160 years ago: Like too much these days, the alternatives we've been provided are at the extremes. They seem to be offered less as viable solutions and more as tools for sorting people into one of two buckets. So, we must be either abolitionists or in favor of the harshest slavery without a hint of regulation. But, of course real solutions--particularly to such macro scale challenges--are seldom found at the extremes. If we could spark an earnest discussion about what a saner version of slavery would look like, then we could find a solution, and relatively easily vs what our "manipulated" experience might suggest.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> Does this kind of "both sidesism" really engage with the reality of the situation No.
pdonis 6y ago
> Here is this comment applied to the situation in America ~160 years ago No, a proper application would be: If we could spark an earnest discussion about how to move towards abolition of slavery peacefully, we could avoid having to fight a war that kills a million people and does not improve the actual material condition of the slaves at all, not to mention leading to another century of Jim Crow laws. But it was already too late in 1860 to have that kind of discussion. It should have happened in the 1820s or 1830s, when many Southern states were indeed considering abolishing slavery--until the fiery no-compromise rhetoric of abolitionists swung the South the other way. The Virginia state legislature had a bill abolishing slavery in 1831 that was close to passing--until copies of William Lloyd Garrison's pamphlet containing copies of his "no moderation" speech arrived and were read by the members.
- ihm 6y ago
  > The Virginia state legislature had a bill abolishing slavery in 1831 that was close to passing--until copies of William Lloyd Garrison's pamphlet containing copies of his "no moderation" speech arrived and were read by the members. I'm no expert in this period but from a cursory research I don't see how you could make this claim. This page gives a completely different impression, which is basically that the legislature punted on the issue[0]. Are we have discussions about how to move toward abolition of the wage system and minoritarian control of the economy peacefully? I am all for that. From history, though, it seems that those who have power are not liable to relinquish that power without putting up a fight. [0]: https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Virginia_Slavery_Debate_of_1831-1832_The https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Virginia_Slavery_Debate...
  - pdonis 6y ago
    IIRC the story I referred to is in Beveridge's Life Of John Marshall, Volume IV. Unfortunately I don't have my copy handy to check right now.
unclebucknasty 6y ago
An out of place argument can be misapplied to "discredit" anything. So is what you did there any "smarter"? This isn't both sideism. It's a simple observation on the state of things. Now this state could be propagated by one side, and I could certainly name which side I think it is. Then what? Are we any closer to the earnest discussion I proposed? Or have I just propagated the narrative I'm critiquing that prevents that discussion? So, my point was deliberately meta--a commentary on the logjam that has prevented solutions to the problem stated by my parent. Did you have an actual response to that? Or are you just in a bad mood? Because, I then proposed we need a discussion around creating a version of capitalism that is sane (which I am happy to define, but that wasn't my point). You are either claiming that's morally tantamount to a pro slavery argument or you're being deliberately disingenuous. EDIT: My original comment could've been clearer. Please see "EDIT" there. That's my bad. But your slavery comment is still out of line.

by ihm 6y ago

dragonwriter 6y ago

> Does this kind of "both sidesism" really engage with the reality of the situation No.

pdonis 6y ago

> Here is this comment applied to the situation in America ~160 years ago No, a proper application would be: If we could spark an earnest discussion about how to move towards abolition of slavery peacefully, we could avoid having to fight a war that kills a million people and does not improve the actual material condition of the slaves at all, not to mention leading to another century of Jim Crow laws. But it was already too late in 1860 to have that kind of discussion. It should have happened in the 1820s or 1830s, when many Southern states were indeed considering abolishing slavery--until the fiery no-compromise rhetoric of abolitionists swung the South the other way. The Virginia state legislature had a bill abolishing slavery in 1831 that was close to passing--until copies of William Lloyd Garrison's pamphlet containing copies of his "no moderation" speech arrived and were read by the members.

ihm 6y ago
> The Virginia state legislature had a bill abolishing slavery in 1831 that was close to passing--until copies of William Lloyd Garrison's pamphlet containing copies of his "no moderation" speech arrived and were read by the members. I'm no expert in this period but from a cursory research I don't see how you could make this claim. This page gives a completely different impression, which is basically that the legislature punted on the issue[0]. Are we have discussions about how to move toward abolition of the wage system and minoritarian control of the economy peacefully? I am all for that. From history, though, it seems that those who have power are not liable to relinquish that power without putting up a fight. [0]: https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Virginia_Slavery_Debate_of_1831-1832_The https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Virginia_Slavery_Debate...
- pdonis 6y ago
  IIRC the story I referred to is in Beveridge's Life Of John Marshall, Volume IV. Unfortunately I don't have my copy handy to check right now.

unclebucknasty 6y ago

An out of place argument can be misapplied to "discredit" anything. So is what you did there any "smarter"? This isn't both sideism. It's a simple observation on the state of things. Now this state could be propagated by one side, and I could certainly name which side I think it is. Then what? Are we any closer to the earnest discussion I proposed? Or have I just propagated the narrative I'm critiquing that prevents that discussion? So, my point was deliberately meta--a commentary on the logjam that has prevented solutions to the problem stated by my parent. Did you have an actual response to that? Or are you just in a bad mood? Because, I then proposed we need a discussion around creating a version of capitalism that is sane (which I am happy to define, but that wasn't my point). You are either claiming that's morally tantamount to a pro slavery argument or you're being deliberately disingenuous. EDIT: My original comment could've been clearer. Please see "EDIT" there. That's my bad. But your slavery comment is still out of line.