3 ms·
> So why would you “both sides” things when one is definitely going to be better. Usually in an wish to maintain order and prevent chaotic conflict. Not going
by the_only_law 4y ago
> So why would you “both sides” things when one is definitely going to be better.
Usually in an wish to maintain order and prevent chaotic conflict. Not going to explicitly say it's a good or bad thing, but that usually seems to be the intent.
- wahnfrieden 4y agocapital is highly organized and well-resourced, keeping workers from attaining the same sounds reactionary
- kennywinker 4y agoYou literally just did a “both-sides” to social change. “Maintaining order” is an act of violence when people’s lives are on the line. A specific social change is either good or bad, there’s no room for people to stand in the middle and obstruct because they can’t be bothered to figure out if they value the risk of change more than the damage of staying the same.
- the_only_law 4y agoNo I answered a question. I very explicitly noted following the question I wasn't going to make specify judgement either way, not because "both sides" but to prevent over zealous users from trying to fight me on it as well as to keep the topic to what I've said as opposed to what people want me to have said so the they can enter their own tirade, which evidently failed.
- yellowapple 4y ago> No I answered a question. And the answer fixated on the "language" of the message, not the merit or contents of the message. Such an answer is worse than useless given the stakes of the question.