3 ms·

Any time I hear complaints about "the other side" being bad without recognition of failures of "their side" I can't help but dismiss that as petulance. The "fr

Any time I hear complaints about "the other side" being bad without recognition of failures of "their side" I can't help but dismiss that as petulance. The "freedom" protest was an anti-vax protest, no? I get the problem with being subjected to a mandated medical treatment but that's also balanced by a less than respected take on the anti-vax movement in general (IMHO being anti-science and anti-reason). And as to censorship, there's some speech which is not healthy for society and should not be promoted. How that is done is a delicate and dangerous dance but to engage on that subject without acknowledging that issue is disingenuous at best. Edit: I'll show a case of where "liberals" (a group that I would be lumped into) are wrong: cases where college students block access to speakers they disagree with. Wrong wrong wrong. My point remains that not ever admitting fault is being dishonest -- lies of omission are still lies.

incomingpain 5y ago
>Any time I hear complaints about "the other side" being bad without recognition of failures of "their side" I can't help but dismiss that as petulance. My side has never been in power. Cant really have failures if you've never gotten into power. Suppose we could discuss failing to win an election but alas. >The "freedom" protest was an anti-vax protest, no? No. It was simply anti-mandates. It was highly successful in eliminating most mandates. > I get the problem with being subjected to a mandated medical treatment but that's also balanced by a less than respected take on the anti-vax movement in general (IMHO being anti-science and anti-reason). That wouldn't be a fair characterization. For 2 years there wasn't a freedom protest. When much of europe and the USA had dropped mandates, Canada had actually gone the other direction and increased restrictions. The key catalyst being a new mandate that put significant number of antivaxxers out of a job. >And as to censorship, there's some speech which is not healthy for society and should not be promoted. How that is done is a delicate and dangerous dance but to engage on that subject without acknowledging that issue is disingenuous at best. If twitter quietly banned every tweet that just says racial slurs for example. Nobody would ever hear about it, if someone shows me they got banned because they said nothing but a racial slur. I would ignore them. In fact all the twitter alternatives do filter racial slurs and such. There is no 'not healthy for society' That's not what I showed is happening. I never said racial slurs. In fact I never said anything wrong at all. It is by mere association that I am punished. This is intentionally done.
- pstuart 5y ago
  I'm puzzled by your responses and would like to engage further but can't until later. My interest in the dialog is not to prove you wrong, but to try to see if some consensus can be found. It feels like a fool's errand but nothing ventured, nothing gained.
  - moistly 5y ago
    Best of luck, ‘cause you might as well be looking for honest reflection in a funhouse hall of mirrors.
TheAceOfHearts 5y ago
This goes into the territory of whataboutism. Saying that X is bad doesn't mean Y isn't also bad. You're just focusing on X at the moment. It's fine to discuss Y too, but consider whether it's relevant to the current discussion or derailing it. It's unreasonable to address all issues when discussing a specific point. Furthermore, it's most reasonable and charitable to assume good faith on the part of your fellow participants. Bringing in unrelated topics just to make some abstract point isn't very helpful to the discussion. Imagine you were trying to open a soup kitchen to feed the local homeless population in your city, and every time you tried to discuss it someone pointed out that there's way more starving kids in Africa, so what about them?

incomingpain 5y ago

>Any time I hear complaints about "the other side" being bad without recognition of failures of "their side" I can't help but dismiss that as petulance. My side has never been in power. Cant really have failures if you've never gotten into power. Suppose we could discuss failing to win an election but alas. >The "freedom" protest was an anti-vax protest, no? No. It was simply anti-mandates. It was highly successful in eliminating most mandates. > I get the problem with being subjected to a mandated medical treatment but that's also balanced by a less than respected take on the anti-vax movement in general (IMHO being anti-science and anti-reason). That wouldn't be a fair characterization. For 2 years there wasn't a freedom protest. When much of europe and the USA had dropped mandates, Canada had actually gone the other direction and increased restrictions. The key catalyst being a new mandate that put significant number of antivaxxers out of a job. >And as to censorship, there's some speech which is not healthy for society and should not be promoted. How that is done is a delicate and dangerous dance but to engage on that subject without acknowledging that issue is disingenuous at best. If twitter quietly banned every tweet that just says racial slurs for example. Nobody would ever hear about it, if someone shows me they got banned because they said nothing but a racial slur. I would ignore them. In fact all the twitter alternatives do filter racial slurs and such. There is no 'not healthy for society' That's not what I showed is happening. I never said racial slurs. In fact I never said anything wrong at all. It is by mere association that I am punished. This is intentionally done.

pstuart 5y ago
I'm puzzled by your responses and would like to engage further but can't until later. My interest in the dialog is not to prove you wrong, but to try to see if some consensus can be found. It feels like a fool's errand but nothing ventured, nothing gained.
- moistly 5y ago
  Best of luck, ‘cause you might as well be looking for honest reflection in a funhouse hall of mirrors.

TheAceOfHearts 5y ago

This goes into the territory of whataboutism. Saying that X is bad doesn't mean Y isn't also bad. You're just focusing on X at the moment. It's fine to discuss Y too, but consider whether it's relevant to the current discussion or derailing it. It's unreasonable to address all issues when discussing a specific point. Furthermore, it's most reasonable and charitable to assume good faith on the part of your fellow participants. Bringing in unrelated topics just to make some abstract point isn't very helpful to the discussion. Imagine you were trying to open a soup kitchen to feed the local homeless population in your city, and every time you tried to discuss it someone pointed out that there's way more starving kids in Africa, so what about them?