3 ms·

I would argue it's currently en vogue to incessantly repeat the argument that "Both Sides" have bad actors, thus commenting on the bad actors of one side is an

I would argue it's currently en vogue to incessantly repeat the argument that "Both Sides" have bad actors, thus commenting on the bad actors of one side is an incomplete argument. It's tiring and non sequitur to hear such arguments however, as what the opposition to a position does is wholly unrelated to the arguments related to that position.

ethbr1 2y ago
I'm not making a "both sides" argument: I'm making a "the individuals that support sides are more important than the sides" one.
- redcobra762 2y ago
  Haha trying to get around pattern matching by lopping off the word “both” doesn’t really strengthen your argument. The problem is that you’re pretending like the sides don’t exist now, yet they do. In reality, the individuals that compose one side are different from the individuals that compose the other side in predictable and problematic ways. Yes, individuals matter, but so too does the trend those individuals embody.
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    > In reality, the individuals that compose one side are different from the individuals that compose the other side in predictable and problematic ways. Predictable is where we disagree strongly. I think there's more diversity than unanimity at the individual level in both parties. In the sense of what people say they believe around a dinner table, not what they passively nod their heads to at a rally or while watching partisan news. Which is ironic, given it's increasingly a trope on both sides that the other is sadly monolithic and all marching in lockstop to their leader's tune. Republicans complain about Democrats being like this; Democrats complain about Republicans being like this. PS: "Problematic" is a terrible non-word. Surely there's a more descriptive adjective to be used?
    - redcobra762 2y ago
      Okay, just so I understand, you're claiming there aren't ideological consistencies across members of a political group?

ethbr1 2y ago

I'm not making a "both sides" argument: I'm making a "the individuals that support sides are more important than the sides" one.

redcobra762 2y ago
Haha trying to get around pattern matching by lopping off the word “both” doesn’t really strengthen your argument. The problem is that you’re pretending like the sides don’t exist now, yet they do. In reality, the individuals that compose one side are different from the individuals that compose the other side in predictable and problematic ways. Yes, individuals matter, but so too does the trend those individuals embody.
- ethbr1 2y ago
  > In reality, the individuals that compose one side are different from the individuals that compose the other side in predictable and problematic ways. Predictable is where we disagree strongly. I think there's more diversity than unanimity at the individual level in both parties. In the sense of what people say they believe around a dinner table, not what they passively nod their heads to at a rally or while watching partisan news. Which is ironic, given it's increasingly a trope on both sides that the other is sadly monolithic and all marching in lockstop to their leader's tune. Republicans complain about Democrats being like this; Democrats complain about Republicans being like this. PS: "Problematic" is a terrible non-word. Surely there's a more descriptive adjective to be used?
  - redcobra762 2y ago
    Okay, just so I understand, you're claiming there aren't ideological consistencies across members of a political group?