4 ms·
On the contrary, this type of "both side-ism" is exactly what sabotages honest discussion. The sides are not anywhere near equal in their willingness to use vio
by enraged_camel 6y ago
On the contrary, this type of "both side-ism" is exactly what sabotages honest discussion. The sides are not anywhere near equal in their willingness to use violence to achieve their means.
One side has leftists rioting in the streets and looting storefronts. The other side has conservatives plowing their cars through liberal protestors at full speed and murdering them.
One side has leftists setting police cars on fire. The other side has conservatives plotting to kidnap and/or murder mayors and governors.
One side has leftists throwing milkshakes at so-called "independent journalists". The other side has political candidates bodyslamming real journalists.
- manigandham 6y agoNo, it's the concept of "sides" that sabotages honest discussion. It's just extremists who are very loud and amplified by others. They do not represent the majority in the middle. There is no group with better humans. It's a failure of context, nuance and understanding if you think so.
- catlifeonmars 6y agoExactly. Side-ism — or the uncritical oversimplification of the complexity that is American politics and American demographics - is about as useful as racism. Honestly, what’s it good for?
- XorNot 6y agoNo there absolute is: it's the side which hasn't ongoingly and repeatedly attempted to murder members of the other. Property is not lives, and your "but the middle!" is meaningless: the middle if it exists is a group of people going "well, someone's dead, but also what about that vacant Wendy's?"
- shadowgovt 6y agoThere may be no group with better humans, but ideologies can be better or worse.
- manigandham 6y ago"Ideologies" are just as bad as "sides". Nobody really thinks that way. Better to discuss individual policies which will show that the vast majority of people comprise a complex mix of perspectives.
- tetrometal 6y agoI'm not going to engage with you in this violence score-keeping exercise, but I will say that it should be apparent to anyone capable of popping their media bubble that you are cherry-picking.
- enraged_camel 6y agoYou're always free to show us examples of leftists plowing their cars into conservative protesters.
- kortilla 6y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Congressional_baseball_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Congressional_baseball_sh...
- zajio1am 6y ago> One side has leftists setting police cars on fire. The other side has conservatives plotting to kidnap and/or murder mayors and governors. There were also assassination attempts from the other side: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Congressional_baseball_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Congressional_baseball_sh... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Donald_Trump_Las_Vegas_rally_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Donald_Trump_Las_Vegas_ra...
- dodobirdlord 6y agoThe first one is a good example. The second one is about a mentally ill British man whose "assassination attempt" never had any chance of success. Should we count as political violence the plot to kill Barack Obama with a "death ray"? I think there's a distinction to be drawn between political violence and crazy people being crazy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_incidents_involving_Barack_Obama#Death_ray_plot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_incidents_involving_B... Interestingly, reading the pages you linked and dredging up the Death Ray link induced me to notice that (1) the previous shooting of a Congressperson was by a right-wing terrorist, and (2) that page about Obama recounts something like 6 very real plots to kill him mixed in among a bunch of variously mentally ill people being delusional. I think it's pretty clear which way the wind blows here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shooting