7 ms·

It is your bias to see only two sides and to see your side as morally superior whose transgressions are justified. There is plenty of utter horriblenesses comin

by fakethenews2022 4y ago

It is your bias to see only two sides and to see your side as morally superior whose transgressions are justified. There is plenty of utter horriblenesses coming from both “sides”.

EdwardDiego 4y ago
- tb_technical 4y ago
  Antifa didn't do it, but a lot of people were negatively affected by refusing to get vaccinated. This administrations policies booted a lot of people from their jobs. And all these bitter conservatives are going to turn around and use this as justification to force women to carry to term. And they're not going to listen to any reason, because they feel like you (not you specifically, the royal "you") threatened their livelyhood. In a sense the lefty types literally made a rod for their own back.
  - Nahtnah 4y ago
    One has very little to do with the other besides having to do with body autonomy. Also, people were never forced to get vaccinated. I would always be against that. Women are being forced to come to term. It's unfair to women for a bunch of nerdy guys to rhetorically equate the two. And by going after abortion, looks like GOP might have made a rod for THEIR own back. We'll see.
    - tb_technical 4y ago
      People are not forced to get vaccinated the same way women are not forced to be fertile. We live in a world of IUDs, morning after pills, and birth control. Why not just not be pregnant? (Yuck) But this is a disgusting line of logic to go down - and whether or not they are truly equivalent doesn't matter because the political opposition believes that they are. Bodily autonomy is about to be sacrificed to government whims, just like privacy was, and assuming we can just put the cat in the bag is naïve. I hope our rights become further enshrined, but I don't think it's in the cards.
      - Nahtnah 4y ago
        Fair enough. But I have to say - your first line makes no sense. Two of the three things you mentioned, I assume you know, don't work 100% of the time. And IUDs are a giant lol from me, many dudes don't even like putting on condoms and you want women to stick this plastic thing in their vagina? So it's all on the woman, and then if she gets pregnant, its STILL all on her, and all decided by a bunch of 'religious' white guys. Is your argument women just shouldn't have sex? Besides the point I agree, but goes to show since this argument was introduced by you as blow back against vaccines and the politics of the current conservatives, that maybe 'their' political rhetoric is a bit wonky. That's the asymmetry I was pointing out in my original comment. You can't just 'both sides' everything blindly.
    - jcadam 4y ago
      > Also, people were never forced to get vaccinated. This will be the line when people start suing their employers over vaccine injuries. "It was always voluntary. You could have just let us fire you."
Nahtnah 4y ago
No I don't really agree, I don't see everything from two sides, and notice I said: 'asymmetries of the 'two sides' in your hypothetical', i.e. it was the two sides from the other guy's hypothetical, not mine. The sides are a construct largely pushed by media, and somewhat by people in power as a convenient device for keeping power. But Q-Anon and all that shit - the rich eat babies, etc. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xwdkng6ZGp8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xwdkng6ZGp8) - isn't a side for me, it's an illness, and it makes sense that the FBI wants to monitor it. I'm for it.
- everforward 4y ago
  Agreed that there aren't only two viewpoints, but there's only two that really matter, due to the construct that you mentioned. > it makes sense that the FBI wants to monitor it. I'm for it. I still think this is short sighted. E.g. the FBI in it's early days was heavily involved in monitoring and trying to break up the Civil Rights Movement. They were spying on people protesting the Vietnam War, people in the Women's Rights Movement, the list goes on. When we let the FBI do dragnet surveillance, it doesn't stop at people with outlandish opinions. It has, and will continue to, impact important political groups and ideologies. Honestly, from the history, it's far more likely to impact liberal groups than conservative ones. The only real controversy around the FBI and conservatives that I can think of is Ruby Ridge, which was more of a libertarian/anarchist thing than anything else.
  - Nahtnah 4y ago
    Agreed, it's not optimal. I've been thinking about this alot lately actually, I think there's always going to be friction of this sort. You could argue it exists at all levels, for example when fighting infections your body often damages/kills it's own cells. Ofc. you can die from an overactive/badly tuned immune system, but more often, people die from not having a strong enough one! But we're not cells, are we.

It is your bias to see only two sides and to see your side as morally superior whose transgressions are justified. There is plenty of utter horriblenesses coming from both “sides”.

EdwardDiego 4y ago

tb_technical 4y ago
Antifa didn't do it, but a lot of people were negatively affected by refusing to get vaccinated. This administrations policies booted a lot of people from their jobs. And all these bitter conservatives are going to turn around and use this as justification to force women to carry to term. And they're not going to listen to any reason, because they feel like you (not you specifically, the royal "you") threatened their livelyhood. In a sense the lefty types literally made a rod for their own back.
- Nahtnah 4y ago
  One has very little to do with the other besides having to do with body autonomy. Also, people were never forced to get vaccinated. I would always be against that. Women are being forced to come to term. It's unfair to women for a bunch of nerdy guys to rhetorically equate the two. And by going after abortion, looks like GOP might have made a rod for THEIR own back. We'll see.
  - tb_technical 4y ago
    People are not forced to get vaccinated the same way women are not forced to be fertile. We live in a world of IUDs, morning after pills, and birth control. Why not just not be pregnant? (Yuck) But this is a disgusting line of logic to go down - and whether or not they are truly equivalent doesn't matter because the political opposition believes that they are. Bodily autonomy is about to be sacrificed to government whims, just like privacy was, and assuming we can just put the cat in the bag is naïve. I hope our rights become further enshrined, but I don't think it's in the cards.
    - Nahtnah 4y ago
      Fair enough. But I have to say - your first line makes no sense. Two of the three things you mentioned, I assume you know, don't work 100% of the time. And IUDs are a giant lol from me, many dudes don't even like putting on condoms and you want women to stick this plastic thing in their vagina? So it's all on the woman, and then if she gets pregnant, its STILL all on her, and all decided by a bunch of 'religious' white guys. Is your argument women just shouldn't have sex? Besides the point I agree, but goes to show since this argument was introduced by you as blow back against vaccines and the politics of the current conservatives, that maybe 'their' political rhetoric is a bit wonky. That's the asymmetry I was pointing out in my original comment. You can't just 'both sides' everything blindly.
  - jcadam 4y ago
    > Also, people were never forced to get vaccinated. This will be the line when people start suing their employers over vaccine injuries. "It was always voluntary. You could have just let us fire you."

Nahtnah 4y ago

No I don't really agree, I don't see everything from two sides, and notice I said: 'asymmetries of the 'two sides' in your hypothetical', i.e. it was the two sides from the other guy's hypothetical, not mine. The sides are a construct largely pushed by media, and somewhat by people in power as a convenient device for keeping power. But Q-Anon and all that shit - the rich eat babies, etc. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xwdkng6ZGp8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xwdkng6ZGp8) - isn't a side for me, it's an illness, and it makes sense that the FBI wants to monitor it. I'm for it.

everforward 4y ago
Agreed that there aren't only two viewpoints, but there's only two that really matter, due to the construct that you mentioned. > it makes sense that the FBI wants to monitor it. I'm for it. I still think this is short sighted. E.g. the FBI in it's early days was heavily involved in monitoring and trying to break up the Civil Rights Movement. They were spying on people protesting the Vietnam War, people in the Women's Rights Movement, the list goes on. When we let the FBI do dragnet surveillance, it doesn't stop at people with outlandish opinions. It has, and will continue to, impact important political groups and ideologies. Honestly, from the history, it's far more likely to impact liberal groups than conservative ones. The only real controversy around the FBI and conservatives that I can think of is Ruby Ridge, which was more of a libertarian/anarchist thing than anything else.
- Nahtnah 4y ago
  Agreed, it's not optimal. I've been thinking about this alot lately actually, I think there's always going to be friction of this sort. You could argue it exists at all levels, for example when fighting infections your body often damages/kills it's own cells. Ofc. you can die from an overactive/badly tuned immune system, but more often, people die from not having a strong enough one! But we're not cells, are we.