3 ms·

Being neutral in an unbalanced situation means you are purposefully ignoring things that should be said and not putting on the table things that should be there

Being neutral in an unbalanced situation means you are purposefully ignoring things that should be said and not putting on the table things that should be there. Not publishing relevant opinions pieces is part of that. To get some distance, imagine being neutral to every candidates during Russia's last elections, and refusing to publish well researched and argumented opinions people have about the leading candidate.

rightbyte 2y ago
What do you mean by 'unbalanced'? "Unstable" or "biased"? The US seems really unstable right now. It is like a ever growing political cacophony. And blaming the "other side" for a mutual problem seems silly for an external observer. The bad faith tone is making the caricatures real by moving people further from each other and entrenching distinctive extremes as ingroup markers. E.g. I feel that during the pandemic supporters of the former president believed the caricatures of his policy on the matter, making it a thing.
- makeitdouble 2y ago
  What I mean by "unbalanced" is that the US situation is not about small details and very minute distinctions. People's opinions are divided on very basic and fundamental issues, there are very radical behaviours and really big swings of money. Trying to keep a "the truth is in the middle" attitude is unethical. I think the main issue becomes "bad faith", and we're back to the credibility issue. IMHO discourse should be fact based, and arguments should be researched. If you're calling your opponent names, show the receipt and not vague gesturing at what you think reality is. Blaming the other side should be fine, as long as you can defend that position.
  - rightbyte 2y ago
    > Trying to keep a "the truth is in the middle" attitude is unethical. It is illogical too. In a simple question of "little" and "much" the truth could be "even smaller" and "way bigger than much". > I think the main issue becomes "bad faith" Ye I think I agree here about it being the main concern. Bad faith accusation, debates etc seem to radicalize the supporters of the accused. I think you make the caricature real at some point when supporters start to believe the misconception.

rightbyte 2y ago

What do you mean by 'unbalanced'? "Unstable" or "biased"? The US seems really unstable right now. It is like a ever growing political cacophony. And blaming the "other side" for a mutual problem seems silly for an external observer. The bad faith tone is making the caricatures real by moving people further from each other and entrenching distinctive extremes as ingroup markers. E.g. I feel that during the pandemic supporters of the former president believed the caricatures of his policy on the matter, making it a thing.

makeitdouble 2y ago
What I mean by "unbalanced" is that the US situation is not about small details and very minute distinctions. People's opinions are divided on very basic and fundamental issues, there are very radical behaviours and really big swings of money. Trying to keep a "the truth is in the middle" attitude is unethical. I think the main issue becomes "bad faith", and we're back to the credibility issue. IMHO discourse should be fact based, and arguments should be researched. If you're calling your opponent names, show the receipt and not vague gesturing at what you think reality is. Blaming the other side should be fine, as long as you can defend that position.
- rightbyte 2y ago
  > Trying to keep a "the truth is in the middle" attitude is unethical. It is illogical too. In a simple question of "little" and "much" the truth could be "even smaller" and "way bigger than much". > I think the main issue becomes "bad faith" Ye I think I agree here about it being the main concern. Bad faith accusation, debates etc seem to radicalize the supporters of the accused. I think you make the caricature real at some point when supporters start to believe the misconception.