4 ms·
Exactly. To one side, the other side includes (or defends) people who were "trying to dismantle democracy [over] unsubstantiated claims of fraud". To the othe
by shiroiushi 2y ago
Exactly. To one side, the other side includes (or defends) people who were "trying to dismantle democracy [over] unsubstantiated claims of fraud". To the other side, these rioters were "peaceful protesters" (I guess they never watched the videos) who did nothing wrong.
In a nutshell, the two sides simply can't even agree on basic reality. If you can't agree on the basic facts of something, it is not possible to have a fruitful discussion about it.
I'm sorry, but I just don't see any kind of workable solution to this issue.
- lotsofpulp 2y ago> To the other side, these rioters were "peaceful protesters" (I guess they never watched the videos) who did nothing wrong. I assume anyone claiming this is lying.
- shiroiushi 2y agoA few people claiming something contrary to readily-available evidence could be explained by lying, but when a significant part of the population does so, it has to be something else.
- lotsofpulp 2y agoI am less hopeful. As I see it, there are a startling amount of people willing to trash the democratic process and dismantle trust in our institutions to accomplish their goals.
- shiroiushi 2y agoSure, but if you look at the stuff they say on that side, they too think that "democracy is in danger" and that only their savior can protect it. It just seems like a case of mass delusion to me, but I'm guessing that in their echo chambers they've come up with some kind of weird logic to explain this. Maybe one of them here could explain it; after all, there are a fair number of these people lurking about on HN.
- freejazz 2y agoSo the emperor is wearing clothes?