this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2024
1902 points (90.0% liked)
Political Memes
5070 readers
3008 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
100% true. "Both sides" arguments exist SOLELY to deflect from awful things done by Republicans, or detract from positive things done by Democrats.
Not once have I seen it deployed for any other purpose.
Edit for the pedants: I should probably have not led with "100% true" before the sentence where I clearly stated my position. Although I think the delta between what I wrote after that and what is in OP is a difference without a distinction, if some of you want to feel like you really got me, you go right ahead.
How about.
Both sides are bad. Republicans are worse.
Nope, it's still used as a way to depress Democrat votes. "Both sides are bad. Republicans are worse." is used as an opener to such arguments as:
vote 3rd party
reject the system (ie don't vote)
accelerationism
do this pie-in-the-sky impossible thing first (communist revolution, etc)
It's a platform by which people are herded into arguments designed solely to depress Democrat votes, aimed squarely at Democrat voters.
Just stick with "Republicans are bad".
The "No criticism of the Democrats" strategy may help win the next election, but long term it will only increase dissatisfaction.
Criticism of Democrats is perfectly reasonable in safe Dem districts. Like Diane Feinstein. But at this point, literally any Democrat is better than literally any Republican, so if Dem control is in doubt, stick with blue no matter who.
Besides, we have a whole primary specifically to criticize Dem candidates. That's when we should be bringing this shit up.
Agreed. I just wish the democratic candidates were better.
2016 showed how ineffective primaries are. The 2020 modifications are lipstick on a pig.
There's this exhaustingly dumb conspiracy theory that Bernie somehow had very broad popular support despite all polls saying otherwise. Bernie didn't have the numbers.
Bernie didn't have the numbers because he didn't have the DNC support, the media support or the pre-assigned superdelegate support.
However, he did have the numbers to beat Trump which is what really counts.
He had the Republican numbers rofl
I highly doubt these Republicans (and Republicans but too ashamed to admit it) would have done anything other than fall in line like they always have during election season.
I think you underestimate how many Republicans dislike Trump.
You're 100% assuming motives. "Deployed", lol.
This is like saying that because we know smoking causes lung cancer, that the ONLY reason anyone smokes is because they're trying to get lung cancer.
Review Hanlon's Razor, and stop thinking there's sinister conspiracies everywhere, it's bad for your mental health.
Intent doesn't matter. I've never seen it used differently. You are welcome to disagree.
Does it actually matter at all what the intent is if the result is Trump winning and full on reducing the United States to a fascist ethnostate?
Yes. Demonizing people not because of who they are, but based on your prejudiced assumptions, is in fact bad, it turns out.
Are you trying to get people not to take you seriously? Because insane over-the-top exaggeration like this is a very strong strategy toward that end, if so.
If anything I'm under exaggerating. I'm unconcerned with bOtH sIdEs
https://lemmy.ca/comment/9744349
this doesn't support the claim
Cool, let me play "guess what this probably disingenuous person would consider evidence". I'm sure that would be productive and yield fruitful results.
your accusation of disingenuousness is bad faith.
Do you have evidence for that claim?
My daily interactions on social media over the past couple of decades?
^sea lion alert
Without a fuckin' doubt.
Just chucking fallacies at the wall and seeing what sticks, eh?
Right.
well now that syntax is confusing since you could be agreeing with me or arguing against me.
as an optimist, i'd prefer the former, but it would probably be bad faith on my part to assert that to be the case without confirming it with you.
I broke the bot.
jsyk, dehumanization is one of eco's steps toward fascism
Keep victimizing yourself.
your accusation is bad faith.
As they say: ~~garbage~~ bad faith in, ~~garbage~~ bad faith out.
another bad faith accusation
You can look at the sea of political discussion on social media and see for yourself.
I very clearly related my own experience. You don't need to agree with me, and I don't demand that you do.
If you don't agree. (and I'm guessing you don't) I doubt very much that any singular example I link is going to change your mind, and I don't care enough about changing it to link a bunch of them for you. I frankly don't know how it's possible to engage in these sorts of discussions online and not observe this exact phenomenon, though.
my guess is that no one has ever said "both sides are bad. i hope by spreading this message, voter turnout is supressed." if such a thing has happened, it's not on me to provide evidence to support your claim. i simply disbelieve your claim, and will not believe it unless i have evidence to the contrary.
I'm OK with that. Also, those weren't my words. Good day to you.
you didn't actually make a specific claim about what was said. i would take any evidence that supports your claim.
This is what you're guilty of invincible ignorance fallacy, or better yet, the argument by pigheadedness.
no evidence has been given