4 ms·

That whole "one side is evil and don't bother responding if you disagree" tone is part of the problem.

creata 6y ago
Honestly, I think it's part of the solution. Too many words are spent in online arguments between two people who aren't at all open to changing their beliefs. If people are willing to admit that at the outset, everyone's time is spared. But anyway, mrlala said "wrong", not "evil", and in this particular case, the evidence is on Trump's Twitter account for everyone to see.
- kortilla 6y ago
  Until you can assign the people you disagree with to the gas chambers, it’s not a solution. They are still there, still voting, etc. 4 years of hysterics and the guy got even more votes than before. Calling them dumb/wrong and not worth engaging is not working.
DavidSJ 6y ago
I don’t think the “don’t bother responding” part is productive, but I also think we have to avoid false equivalences, pretending both sides are anywhere close in terms of how much they’ve misbehaved (not saying you’re doing that, but a lot of people are in an attempt to stay above the fray). False equivalence is how the frogs got boiled and we ended up where we are today.
- LMYahooTFY 6y ago
  So, one side is evil?
  - MrRiddle 6y ago
    Looks like it, not sure which one though.
  - VBprogrammer 6y ago
    The idea of "false balance" cannot be so quickly wiped away with a one liner. Imagine the current media shit storm was being given credibility by the media by devoting half of their reporting to ways maybe Trump is right, maybe Trump did win. They would be enabling authoritarian behaviour. Balance in reporting should be aiming to centre around objective truth. Not trying to find the mid point between one side or another's narrative.
    - mellosouls 6y ago
      Unfortunately this still misses the important point of consistent and repeated bias against Trump to the point of attempting to undermine his legitimacy by the media and political establishment ever since he was elected; it's not reasonable to suddenly assume good faith and objective analysis on their part - regardless of his own trollish culpability in that process and unpleasant history.
      - mgkimsal 6y ago
        > consistent and repeated bias against Trump to the point of attempting to undermine his legitimacy by the media most of what I've seen pointed to as bias is basically reporting on what he said/did, and he didn't like it. In the first month(?) Sebastian Gorka said ... "There is a monumental desire on behalf of the majority of the media ... to attack a duly elected President in the second week of his term... and until the media understands how wrong that attitude is, and how it hurts their credibility, we are going to continue to say, 'fake news.'" The term from day one was meant to point out reporting/news that the administration didn't like, regardless of the truth of the news/facts/reporting. There's a possibility that people are 'biased' against stuff you say because they have a 'bias' for truth, and you're lying on a regular basis. You may be correct in saying people are 'biased' against you, but that doesn't make their statements wrong, or what you say truth.
    - ovi256 6y ago
      > should be aiming to centre around objective truth What is objective truth in politics ? It's the most non-objective aspect of society there is, arguably even more non-objective than art.
wccrawford 6y ago
When people have that attitude, even if I otherwise agree with them, I basically just stop listening to them. It's always more nuanced than that and I haven't got the time or stress-level to deal with people who can't handle nuance.
npsimons 6y ago
https://thenib.com/the-spirit-of-compromise/ https://thenib.com/the-spirit-of-compromise/

Honestly, I think it's part of the solution. Too many words are spent in online arguments between two people who aren't at all open to changing their beliefs. If people are willing to admit that at the outset, everyone's time is spared. But anyway, mrlala said "wrong", not "evil", and in this particular case, the evidence is on Trump's Twitter account for everyone to see.

kortilla 6y ago
Until you can assign the people you disagree with to the gas chambers, it’s not a solution. They are still there, still voting, etc. 4 years of hysterics and the guy got even more votes than before. Calling them dumb/wrong and not worth engaging is not working.

DavidSJ 6y ago

I don’t think the “don’t bother responding” part is productive, but I also think we have to avoid false equivalences, pretending both sides are anywhere close in terms of how much they’ve misbehaved (not saying you’re doing that, but a lot of people are in an attempt to stay above the fray). False equivalence is how the frogs got boiled and we ended up where we are today.

LMYahooTFY 6y ago
So, one side is evil?
- MrRiddle 6y ago
  Looks like it, not sure which one though.
- VBprogrammer 6y ago
  The idea of "false balance" cannot be so quickly wiped away with a one liner. Imagine the current media shit storm was being given credibility by the media by devoting half of their reporting to ways maybe Trump is right, maybe Trump did win. They would be enabling authoritarian behaviour. Balance in reporting should be aiming to centre around objective truth. Not trying to find the mid point between one side or another's narrative.
  - mellosouls 6y ago
    Unfortunately this still misses the important point of consistent and repeated bias against Trump to the point of attempting to undermine his legitimacy by the media and political establishment ever since he was elected; it's not reasonable to suddenly assume good faith and objective analysis on their part - regardless of his own trollish culpability in that process and unpleasant history.
    - mgkimsal 6y ago
      > consistent and repeated bias against Trump to the point of attempting to undermine his legitimacy by the media most of what I've seen pointed to as bias is basically reporting on what he said/did, and he didn't like it. In the first month(?) Sebastian Gorka said ... "There is a monumental desire on behalf of the majority of the media ... to attack a duly elected President in the second week of his term... and until the media understands how wrong that attitude is, and how it hurts their credibility, we are going to continue to say, 'fake news.'" The term from day one was meant to point out reporting/news that the administration didn't like, regardless of the truth of the news/facts/reporting. There's a possibility that people are 'biased' against stuff you say because they have a 'bias' for truth, and you're lying on a regular basis. You may be correct in saying people are 'biased' against you, but that doesn't make their statements wrong, or what you say truth.
  - ovi256 6y ago
    > should be aiming to centre around objective truth What is objective truth in politics ? It's the most non-objective aspect of society there is, arguably even more non-objective than art.

wccrawford 6y ago

When people have that attitude, even if I otherwise agree with them, I basically just stop listening to them. It's always more nuanced than that and I haven't got the time or stress-level to deal with people who can't handle nuance.

npsimons 6y ago

https://thenib.com/the-spirit-of-compromise/ https://thenib.com/the-spirit-of-compromise/