3 ms·

I keep seeing "both sides". This whole schema seems to be based on the faulty assumption that there are only two sides. In the last US Presidential election, n

by _qulr 6y ago

I keep seeing "both sides". This whole schema seems to be based on the faulty assumption that there are only two sides. In the last US Presidential election, nearly half of eligible voters didn't vote for either of the 2 major party candidates. This is mainly due to turnout being only 56%. IMO political discourse would be much improved if "both sides" simply stopped talking altogether, allowing other people and views to have adequate representation for once.

username3 6y ago
There are many sides. I used “both sides” as a minimum. All sides should have their points listed and acknowledged. We need to show that the 2 major parties are ignoring the other parties.
- _qulr 6y ago
  I think this also assumes that the 2 major parties have coherent, consistent ideologies. On the contrary, it seems to me that each of them are fairly diverse coalitions with not a small number of fierce internal disagreements, who are forced to come together because of a winner-take-all, first-past-the-post electoral system. What if there are millions of sides?
- henriquez 6y ago
  If the number of "sides" is unbounded and it's necessary to acknowledge, consider, and respond to all points/beliefs from all sides, then it's functionally impossible to do what you're suggesting. Especially so when there are trade-offs to prioritizing one belief system over another and not an ideal outcome for all people. I think, at its very core, the exercise of trying to "solve" politics is misguided. It's naive to assume that there are objective truths that can be distilled from rationally deconstructing peoples' political beliefs. There is a huge emotional component to any individuals' framework of beliefs, whether they will admit to it or not, and I strongly believe this is a good thing and part of what makes us human. I see very often here that people try to totally factor out emotions from their thinking and think like computers. While this makes for good storytelling tropes (characters like Elliot Alderson or L from Death Note), it makes for bad human beings. We should be embracing the fact that we are emotional beings and encouraging passionate behavior, at least so far that it's not used as a bludgeon to "destroy" other people. I think a better exercise would be to accept that people have different beliefs and encourage constructive debate based on curiosity and empathy. All too often people throw around the idea that a plurality of people in their countries are "evil" - and I think it comes from a place of fear and ignorance. It will be more fruitful and interesting to break down peoples' barriers rather than change them or figure out who is "right."
  - username3 6y ago
    > I think a better exercise would be to accept that people have different beliefs and encourage constructive debate based on curiosity and empathy. That’s the goal. Both sides are stuck in echo chambers. We need to pressure them out and acknowledge the others. It’s pointless listening to and side when they don’t address criticism.
MuffinFlavored 6y ago
are there any clear cut answers to “minimum wage should federally be $15/hr for all states“ democrats say yes republicans say no hence, two sides wash, rinse, and repeat for socialized healthcare, student loan forgiveness, and open borders how can it not be party versus party when there’s no clear cut correct answer?

by _qulr 6y ago

username3 6y ago

There are many sides. I used “both sides” as a minimum. All sides should have their points listed and acknowledged. We need to show that the 2 major parties are ignoring the other parties.

_qulr 6y ago
I think this also assumes that the 2 major parties have coherent, consistent ideologies. On the contrary, it seems to me that each of them are fairly diverse coalitions with not a small number of fierce internal disagreements, who are forced to come together because of a winner-take-all, first-past-the-post electoral system. What if there are millions of sides?
henriquez 6y ago
If the number of "sides" is unbounded and it's necessary to acknowledge, consider, and respond to all points/beliefs from all sides, then it's functionally impossible to do what you're suggesting. Especially so when there are trade-offs to prioritizing one belief system over another and not an ideal outcome for all people. I think, at its very core, the exercise of trying to "solve" politics is misguided. It's naive to assume that there are objective truths that can be distilled from rationally deconstructing peoples' political beliefs. There is a huge emotional component to any individuals' framework of beliefs, whether they will admit to it or not, and I strongly believe this is a good thing and part of what makes us human. I see very often here that people try to totally factor out emotions from their thinking and think like computers. While this makes for good storytelling tropes (characters like Elliot Alderson or L from Death Note), it makes for bad human beings. We should be embracing the fact that we are emotional beings and encouraging passionate behavior, at least so far that it's not used as a bludgeon to "destroy" other people. I think a better exercise would be to accept that people have different beliefs and encourage constructive debate based on curiosity and empathy. All too often people throw around the idea that a plurality of people in their countries are "evil" - and I think it comes from a place of fear and ignorance. It will be more fruitful and interesting to break down peoples' barriers rather than change them or figure out who is "right."
- username3 6y ago
  > I think a better exercise would be to accept that people have different beliefs and encourage constructive debate based on curiosity and empathy. That’s the goal. Both sides are stuck in echo chambers. We need to pressure them out and acknowledge the others. It’s pointless listening to and side when they don’t address criticism.

MuffinFlavored 6y ago

are there any clear cut answers to “minimum wage should federally be $15/hr for all states“ democrats say yes republicans say no hence, two sides wash, rinse, and repeat for socialized healthcare, student loan forgiveness, and open borders how can it not be party versus party when there’s no clear cut correct answer?