4 ms·
sometimes groups of people are just nasty, bad people worthy of mocking and ridicule. You can't always pretend that situations are around reasonable differences
by mbfg 5y ago
sometimes groups of people are just nasty, bad people worthy of mocking and ridicule. You can't always pretend that situations are around reasonable differences of opinion with each side being honest actors. Each situation is going to be different. the english/french situation may be one way and the progressive/conservative situation may be different.
- coldtea 5y agosometimes groups of people are just nasty, bad people worthy of mocking and ridicule Yes, conservatives aren't just people with a different belief system than yours. They are bad people, liars, evil, rotten to the core, and deserve to die. /s
- tobltobs 5y agoHow did you decide that he meant conservatives == nasty, bad people?
- coldtea 5y agoIt was a statistical observation. The people who phrase it the way the parent did, usually tend to be on a specific side. (The other side has its tell-signs as well).
- hallway_monitor 5y agoIf you are liberal you believe conservatives are greedy, amoral and probably evil. If you are conservative you believe liberals are stupid and probably brainwashed. This is America.
- mbfg 5y agoYou need to evaluate verifiable facts and come to conclusions. In discussion regarding two sides, A against B, you don't just say well each has it's good points, each has it's bad, we have to be fair and balanced. No, this is especially where newspapers have it wrong. You are fair and balanced when you appropriate praise and scorn to sides based on the externally verifiable facts, and the honestness of their actions. You don't blindly give both sides equal footing for fairness. When a man beats up a wife, _you don't say_, well, look, she probably wasn't the easiest to live with, and he had it tough dealing with her. He is a good business man, and a pillar in the community. so look both sides have positives and negatives. (Well to be fair as a society we usually do, do this, but clearly we are wrong). No the facts say otherwise.
- bumby 5y agoI don't think the point is advocating some sort of moral relativism but rather to steel-man both sides in good-faith rather than respond to some sort of caricature of each.
- mbfg 5y agoYes i agree caricaturing is clearly wrong. But i am saddened by this group think that all groups of people should be given even standing as all having positives and negatives. People should be given standings based on verifiable evidence with regard to their actions. If your group is composed of bad actors, your group is bad. We don't have to treat you fair and balanced.
- coldtea 5y agoAnd if you're neither, you can see through both charades.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- bumby 5y agoI think interrogating those differences can help you either find out if they are borne of "nastiness" and ignorance, or if there is actually fundamental difference in values that should be explored. E.g., Someone could assume a person is against voter ID simply because they want to disenfranchise specific groups or they can legitimately be concerned about fraud. If we just assume the former, it misses any opportunity to make rational arguments about the claims of the latter.
- techrat 5y agoYet if you look at all the cases of actual election fraud and voter fraud, they (almost?) exclusively fall on the side pushing voter ID the hardest.