Both sides ARE bad. The trick is to use critical thinking and realize that one side is "stupid and misguided" bad and the other is "literal nazi, genocide against minorities, and also very stupid" bad.
That's begging the question in the traditional sense of the term in formal logic. First of all you have to establish that it is in fact a genocide. While what the IDF is doing probably counts as war crimes, I have yet to see a convincing case that it's genocide in a legal sense. We'll see. I'm more than willing to change my mind in light of new evidence or a stronger argument than I have seen thus far.
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with
intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as
such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its
physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
The only one in question is the last point, but any single one of those points means it's a genocide.
Ok so you don’t consider what they are doing genocidal actions.
Forcing people out of their homes, cutting off all electricity, food, and water while having them in a complete barricade and shutting down or extremely limiting aid, while destroying 80% of housing is Genocide.
If you feel the need to try and hide behind obfuscation then you do you but I can call a spade a spade.
Almost everyone with national level political power do. An open letter from House democrats to the White House urging them to work towards a ceasefire agreement had TWELVE signatures. Out of 212. And one of the 12 even tried to quietly remove her signature from it without the public noticing.
They may not hate Palestine, but they sure as hell don't care enough about Palestinian lives to not support the fascist Israeli government and its genocide.
Well the democratic president just sidestepped congressional reviews to give more tank shells to the Israelis but is struggling to provide Ukraine with materiel and shut down giving them fighter jets.
“The son of YOUR president took a single bribe and showed his ding dong on the internet, my president rapes women, lies about his finances, commits fraud and incites an insurrection! See both side are bad!”
And some of us just really want fresh healthy food. At least some of us will eat the day old food, but won’t be happy about that being the best choice. But because of polarization and group think, we’re just lumped in with the nazis. The internet is fun.
I find it interesting that the hamas Israel conflict has become such a political issue. Support of Israel in general, yeah religiously charged. But Hamas did start the attack and do a ton of fucked up stuff. SO many hostages including Americans. Israel is an oppressive government and from a distance seems systemically racist not just overly defensive. I just feel like this is a more nuanced issue
I just think it’s worth noting that Hamas does call for the destruction of Israel. You can’t discount one set of lost lives for another. The only real victims here are non-Hamas Palestinians
I’m not finding anything explicit about the destruction of Israel being a Hamas goal which is interesting. I wonder if anyone else can find that source. I would love for that not to be the case
I’m honestly not. I want to learn, especially in times like these where the information warfare is so tough on both sides. These were just the only more academic sources I could find. I’m not saying “I’m right until you prove otherwise” just trying to crowd source research
It doesn't matter though, he's not the president and is not involved in any politicalmatters. Sure, he should be investigated if he did something wrong, but why is that relevant?
It's not good of its own merit though, it's only good compared to something worse. Neither party represents the interests of the average working class individual.
Maybe for you that's the case, I definitely have a definition of morally good and both sides aren't that. Accepting collateral for example. You can't be good in my book if you're doing that, and they both did.
Edit: I thought about it more after responding and the Democratic party does occasionally implement policies that are beneficial to the American people. It's just difficult to see that sometimes among all of the pandering to corporate interests. So I concede that occasionally the Dems are beneficial for the working class, and almost/always better than the Republicans.
I don't think you should state this so definitively in a couple sentences, when philosophers whose job it is to figure this out are still pouring out dissertations on this question.
But I do think there is a legitimate ACAB angle here, to slice it by power dynamics instead:
All political leaders are bastards.
It's not just one nation vs another, it's also civilians vs the political elite.
So while I agree it's wrong to say "both sides are equally to blame", there are other useful perspectives. I think.
For me at least, it's more of "conservatives are crazy, conspiracy-led, bigots but liberals are annoying." and this of course only applies to the most outspoken of both sides.
I know plenty of people who vote republican, that are decent people (not antivax, not racist, not homophobic), but are either religious or gun nuts. Hell, I have a coworker that agrees with 95% of democratic policies but will never vote for them because they'll "take his guns." Do I think they're dumb, sure. Do I think they're evil, no?
Liberals I see like vegans. The core messaging is right, but the preachier you get, the more people are going to dislike you, even if they agree with you on principle. Even though I've voted democrat in every election, I couldn't help but roll my eyes when someone told me I should stop using the word "marijuana" because it's racist.
I don't really want to hang out with qanon, racist types or people where I have to be careful of saying "mailman" instead of "mail carrier". Obviously if I had to choose, it'd be the latter, but I don't have to choose because 80% of people aren't that politically motivated every second of their day.
I have a coworker that agrees with 95% of democratic policies but will never vote for them because they'll "take his guns."
Did he not hear trump say he likes to take the guns first and worry about the law later? Did he not hear trump say China was too soft in Tiananmen Square?
The Democrats are coming for the guns... but so is trump.
You're giving these guys too much credit. They don't follow the news or read anything, ever. This is the same coworker who, when a hasidic Jewish person walked into our shop, said "I thought Amish couldn't work with electricity" and was 100% genuine.
Your absolutely right. Trump gets a pretty failing grade on 2A rights and from a general libertarian measure, and shouldn't even be run on republican tickets. As someone who wants more Democrat aligned things like universal healthcare, UBI, police reform, and tax reform, I want those things from a libertarian framestate where those things are the most effective way for the federal government to provide for the common good with the least amount of bureaucracy and government intrusion into citizen's lives. This means I hold all of my constitutional rights in high regard, the 2nd among them.
I hate having my options being a "choose which rights you least want to lose" adventure game. Since taking the guns is a Democrat plank compared to at least lip service in support at the Republican party level, you get shills like Trump getting the pro gun vote cause he was quiet about it for long enough. Living in the flyovers, I have been voting for my not-anto-gun Democrat at the state level, but I wish i had those options at the House/Senate and Presidental levels too because without RCV my third party votes are basically protest votes. Further off topic, I am getting feed up with more and more libertarian candidates not being libertarian but Christian nationalist lite. The cancer is spreading.
I am getting feed up with more and more libertarian candidates not being libertarian but Christian nationalist lite. The cancer is spreading.
They're all corporatists. They state a couple of libertarian ideals that are in no way reflected in their voting history, and then they go hard for the GOP agenda. I guess that's a good strategy, since most libertarians in the United States seem to actually be Republicans. It is really frustrating being someone who doesn't fully align with either party, and having no other options.
I think the amount of annoying anal liberals such as that is overblown. And whenever I do see that, I see other leftists calling their shit out.
What's really "both sides" is the fact that Democrats don't do enough when they have the chances too, because really the majority opinion of the Democrats is way farther right then people in the US like to admit.
Tbf my way of thinking is probably based off my environment. I live in a liberal area but work in a conservative work environment, so all the conservatives I know don't have Trump flags, stickers, spout antivax shit, etc. but all the liberals I know feel more empowered.
But as far as the political parties themselves go, I agree. Neither side is doing anything to address the class divide, which would help nearly everyone.
Nothing bugs me more than democrats being called the "extreme left" or wtf ever. They're center right, full stop.
Unpopular opinion, if dems ran an leftist they'd sweep it. They can't though because it'd be detrimental to everything they actually care about. Bernie swept that primary year but we all knew they'd never run him.
The Dems have run relative leftists in the past: Bernie Sanders was on the primary ballot in 2020 ... and lost.
If you want to blame anyone: look at our fellow "voters". Asking my under-30 coworkers if they voted in the primary and/or the general election was depressing as fuck.
What alternative is there to getting preachier? I don’t get in people’s faces, but I understand why people do it. For years, they’ve lightly suggested perhaps making things not terrible, and it’s let the far right get away with heinous shit.
Depends on context. If someone is saying "wow I hate all gays and hope they're put in extermination camps" then sure I'd speak up and tell them they're a piece of shit. If someone says "I think gays should have equal rights but personally I think it's wrong" then I'd shrug it off. I think there's a line between outright hatred and ignorance/cultural/religious-norms that people ignore too much. Qanon type people are too far gone, but the others I think could change, and immediately shutting them down as racists or homophobes doesn't help sway them.
What's the response if someone is making statements like "I think it's important for everyone to get in politics. For instance, I have listened to Mr. Dobadian many times and think he's an excellent candidate." and the first search result for this fictitious person is a speech where he declares; "ALL PEOPLE WITH BROWN EYES NEED TO DROWN IN MUD WATER."?
Shut down the latter person immediately as racist. But what about the first - the person advocating them? What's the right way of disrupting their beliefs without "belittling" them?
"Hey, I listened to that Mr. Dobadian and he sounds crazy. I think you should be careful about listening to him."
"I get that it sounds different for someone indoctrinated by media, but I do think you should give him a chance."
"No, I mean, he literally said that schoolchildren needed to be blown up."
"I don't see value in disingenuously misrepresenting my candidate. I think you're drawing your own extreme conclusions."
"Okay, you know what, screw you, you're just another racist."
"Wow! Immediate shutdown much? Your kind are so intolerant!"
Or, you could ignore these "secondary echos" of the extremist crazies - which is what lead to people in extremist positions spreading their message and getting elected.
So, which is it? Do you interface with them, and make your beliefs known, or not? Keep in mind, you literally won't have all the time in the world to dismantle the lack of logic behind every one of them.
I mean, this made up person definitely sounds difficult to deal with. But this is getting into qanon territory basically, and I don't think the vast majority of conservatives are like that. Plus I believe you can have open discussions and say "I disagree with that entirely" without adding "and you're a bigot" at the end. It's also easier in real life to tell if someone is genuinely hateful or their heart is in the right place but they're a bit of a moron.
My whole gripe with overly-progressives is that they'll completely write someone off as evil for not being progressive enough. It seems you're assuming I'd never speak up against genuine racism, when originally my point was "it's annoying when people tell you saying 'marijuana' or 'mailman' is racist and transphobic.
Plus I believe you can have open discussions and say "I disagree with that entirely" without adding "and you're a bigot" at the end.
Man, you'd think so. Wouldn't ya? But I haven't heard that type of discourse in a long time. I know people who accuse anyone who doesn't agree with literally every point they make of being bigots. Just today I was talking with a friend who accused a person with a blended family of being a racist. I see the same thing every single day online. Go find some 10 year old Reddit posts about politics and read the comments, the tone and the communication is completely different than it is now. It's getting pretty bad out there.
I'm kidding there, but maybe you see my point. Just like myself, you've set only a small set of options. Either people are evil, or they're stupid, and no one likes being called either. It's not plausible to completely avoid either label.
The point about marijuana is unfortunately lost on me. If it's a reference to some extremist position, I'm afraid I don't necessarily follow.
Completely new... seen partying with the existing cabal in 1990's and also affiliated with the sex island pedophile ring that nobody ever got in trouble for.
The way the US democracy works, attempting this would be too dangerous i.e. either all your fellow voters agree with you or you lose. How sure are you about winning this?
I wonder if the people telling everyone that nobody else will vote third party has anything to do with people thinking nobody else will vote third party and then not voting 3rd party as a result.
No. It's just a really bad idea to vote third party, because of the spoiler effect. A strong third party would only destroy the party it is more aligned with.
You realize this left vs. right alignment shit was created because the rich and powerful wants the regular poors to keep an us vs. them mindset so we'll never leave this stupid 2 party system that only serves to benefit them.
Not a democracy... It's a constitutional federal republic. There's a difference.
If I vote like everyone else then there's no point in voting at all, nothing will ever change either way.
It's not about being sure, it's about not voting for the same people who we know are corrupt or incompetent.
I just want a different political party to get on the ballet at least once, at this point I don't even care which one. I'm just sick and tired of this bullshit.
A federal republic is a type of democracy. Often those that make this hard distinction are thinking republic vs direct democracy, which while accurate doesn’t capture the democracy most people are referring to when they say the US is a democracy. They mean the US is a modern liberal democracy, which it is, and has the constitutional federal republic style of government. I point this out not to nitpick, but because the right has used the argument that the US isn’t a democracy to justify eroding our rights.
I'll gladly compromise as long as it means there's more choices in the future.
This shit is like being vender locked where the only choice is between 2 really shit monopolies.
The ideological signifying here, though, is squarely situated within the language of American politics. All Lives Matter was a reactionary counter to Black Lives Matter, a distinctly American political movement. Similarly, "both sides suck" is something which has been repeated ad nauseam about American politics. As such, the meme suggests itself that it's about American politics. At least that's how I'm reading it. If the OP meant it to be about Israel and Palestine, I think they could have framed it better.
Palestine itself is a two party system. Hamas vs Fatah, the former controls the Gaza Strip, the latter controls the West Bank (specifically the areas not occupied by Israel)
Show me any decision of consequence in life that doesn’t have a downside. There are no perfect choices, just less bad ones. And in the 2024 US election there’s one choice that’s a lot worse than the other.
It may not technically be too late, but everyone who has a say about it has nixed the idea.
A primary SHOULD happen, hopefully with someone much better than the Senator from MBNA winning it, but it's not going to. The corrupt establishment protects their own.
The problem isn't that I want to be a centrist because I think it's correct. It's because this country is going to fucking shit with the deadlock on any kind of cooperation.
Constantly volleying for further extremes correct or not is why we can't get a budget approved, why even with the ACA it got stripped to fucking Bits when the next presidency swung around.
The reality is you want to be bringing in more voters by being more palatable and not pushing them away by drawing a line in the sand for EVERY single issue. No I'm a better liberal! No I'm a better liberal look at me virtue signal.
Can't we start a 'We all suck' movement. There are shitty people of all races, genders, ethnicities, religions, or whatever. Once we all embrace that we can all evolve and work against them.
I've found people on here actually arguing that hamas is unambiguously right in their actions. Unlike black lives matter where saying white lives don't matter is a complete straw man that no one was arguing. So making sure people are on the same page about Hamas I think is valuable still.
You know your take is "How dare they fighting against being genocided" they should let Isreal drop bombs at them and kill their families daily like the last half century and never ever retaliate while the world watchs in silence or even help Isreal doing the massacre. How inhuman of them to fight back with the same ferocity the Isreali settlers fucks has shown to them. Oh, look at the Poor isreali settlers that left their western country to go and steal a palistinian land and act towards them worst than during apartheid SA. Yeah, hamas are freedom fighters and isreali propagandists call them terrorists to delegitimize Palestinians fight against fucking genocide.
I geuss when someone enters your home and beat the shit out of you and your family, Steal and destroy all your belongings every other day you just accept it and will not defend yourself, huh?
This is international law. We must uphold international law and promote human rights, because any society that does not, puts the whole world closer to barbarism.
International laws that isreal keep violating over and over and the world stay silent. They even kill journalists for god sake !! The world has shown us its true colors but thanks God the new generation is waking up. In the future, these laws will hopefully be truly followed.
Depends on the issue. Queerphobics vs "woke ideology"? One denys a minority the right to exist and tries everything to make them miserable (including bringing them to the point of suicide) whilst the other sometimes maybe overshoots a little. There's no "muh, bOtH sIdEs" here.
Isreal and Palestina? Hamas is a terror organization hiding behind civilians, in hospitals etc, risking innocent palestinian lives (and there are innocent civilians in Palestine) whilst the israeli government conducts policies of illegal settling or funding of Hamas to stay in power and facilitate a public enemy. Both sides here do abhorrent things on the back of innocent civilian lives, but both do have reasons.
All in all, this meme is perfect. The stupid and idiotic person depicted fits the stupid and undifferentiated caption very well.
(And yes, I know this text will start a comment war about Israel and Palestine because too many people feel like they have to pick a side and defend everything that side does. I will not participate though.)
I disagree. If I'm being honest, I care too much, but I'm overwhelmed by a combination of sadness, anger and fear. I have no idea where to start to fix our societal problems. Anyone who sticks their neck out gets their head cut off. Look at what they're doing to Assange for exposing the truth. Every president since Nixon has been a fucking war criminal.
Hence people falling back to “I don’t care” as a defense mechanism. The world is too big, and there’s too much awful happening, to emotionally invest in all of it. Not and stay sane. It’s so much easier to narrow focus to your own life and pursuits, and let everything else be what it is.
And so we get these useless platitudes, because “I don’t care about that” can be both true and socially unacceptable at the same time.
You are right, there will be people who remain to not buy into the side of the moral grandstanders and they will be shamed incessantly for it and grouped in the same bin as the extreme right even though that is very far from their position.
They do suck, but the GOP is significantly worse in every way: It's all about the least shitty choice in the United States which is why we need ranked choice voting so badly.
Yeah, people need to stop condemning plaestinians for resisting genocide.
Oh this is about voting lol.
You know, this shit is frustrating. Imagine every day everyone has to vote whether 10 people in lets say a group of 30 will be hit with a bat 4 times or 5 times, and everyone else gets hit once.
And you talk to the other people, and say "we have to stop these people hitting us with bats or we're all going to die" and they respond with "but you're going to vote for those people to be hit four times, right? Getting hit 5 times is much worse! We have to devote all our time and effort to making sure the 4 times option wins!" And of course they're one of the people who only gets hit once either way.
I typed out a like 6 paragraph explanation of why it’s both of their faults that this is happening. Suffice to say that this is just the latest iteration of a fight that’s been going on for a very VERY long time. At times the Palestinians were in control and horrible, and now the Jews are returning the favor. These two assholes have done nothing but make it worse every time they got a chance to make it better.
That’s why I literally don’t care what happens to either. They are both horrible and I’m a poor person on the other side of the world. Even IF I cared. I lack the money and resources to do anything about it, and debating with people on the internet about things that we can’t change and don’t fully understand is a modern day Sisyphean task.
Edit: wait are we talking US politics? In that case both sides do suck. But one is trying to kill trans and gay people and I can’t support that. So, Biden it is.
The meme itself isn't about U.S. politics( at least I don't perceive it that way, I see it more general since I have seen this argument in a lot of situations while not being american), but the overwhelmingly american majority of users want to make it about a U.S. election.
It doesn’t matter what I think the borders should be. I have no sway over that. Not only do I not have a dog in this fight. I don’t find it entertaining to debate it. I have read a nauseating amount of material about this subject. I have watched enough videos on this subject to be considered torture, and in the end. I can’t help but feel like both of these assholes are made for each other.
But like I said. My feelings mean absolutely nothing. Because I am just a random weirdo on the internet, just like you. Just like you, I don’t have the money or influence to bring peace to the Middle East. Just like you, I did what I felt was enough research and then made a decision. Just like you this conversation isn’t going to sway me. But more importantly. Just like you my feelings on the subject won’t change anything. Innocent people are going to die regardless of what we say. It’s a tragedy, but it’s true.
So, I guess what I’m saying is… Maybe we should agree to disagree.
Thanks for the link, I didn't know that. There's also the first "no" which was the Arabs saying no to the UN partition plan of mandatory Palestine.
It reminds me of the buzz on twitter last year about "how much land should Ukraine cede to Russia in exchange for peace" and the general concensus there was also "no".
That’s why I literally don’t care what happens to either.
Tbh I respect your honesty much more than the cowards who share your opinion but try to stay on their moral high horse by saying "well akshually, both sides bad". If you think Palestinians should get genocided, just say it. If you don't care, just say it. If you do care, just say it.
MLK Jr. had a similar idea about the "moderate white", and there's a good Elie Wiesel quote in the same vein:
I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.
The idea that pointing out that modern "democracy" is a sham that's hurting us all in the name of capitalism, is in any way comparable to a racist dog whistle, only goes to show your privilege and wilful ignorance
Both sides ARE bad. The trick is to use critical thinking and realize that one side is "stupid and misguided" bad and the other is "literal nazi, genocide against minorities, and also very stupid" bad.
Both sides are currently supporting genocide right now.
You might want to fix that.
That's begging the question in the traditional sense of the term in formal logic. First of all you have to establish that it is in fact a genocide. While what the IDF is doing probably counts as war crimes, I have yet to see a convincing case that it's genocide in a legal sense. We'll see. I'm more than willing to change my mind in light of new evidence or a stronger argument than I have seen thus far.
From Oxford, the traditional dictionary:
What part of that is Israel not doing?
Or we can go with the legal definition from the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide linked from https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml.
Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
The only one in question is the last point, but any single one of those points means it's a genocide.
Ok so you don’t consider what they are doing genocidal actions.
Forcing people out of their homes, cutting off all electricity, food, and water while having them in a complete barricade and shutting down or extremely limiting aid, while destroying 80% of housing is Genocide.
If you feel the need to try and hide behind obfuscation then you do you but I can call a spade a spade.
Almost everyone with national level political power do. An open letter from House democrats to the White House urging them to work towards a ceasefire agreement had TWELVE signatures. Out of 212. And one of the 12 even tried to quietly remove her signature from it without the public noticing.
They may not hate Palestine, but they sure as hell don't care enough about Palestinian lives to not support the fascist Israeli government and its genocide.
Israel has supreme power in the US government.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-resolution/894/text
Ain't that the disgusting truth.. 😮💨
You make a good point
Well the democratic president just sidestepped congressional reviews to give more tank shells to the Israelis but is struggling to provide Ukraine with materiel and shut down giving them fighter jets.
Hyperbole? What are you talking about?
Trans people.
I’m genuinely not sure which side you think is which.
“The son of YOUR president took a single bribe and showed his ding dong on the internet, my president rapes women, lies about his finances, commits fraud and incites an insurrection! See both side are bad!”
Both sides are bad the same way that day-past-expiration milk and arsenic are both yucky
Great way of putting it. Also, your username made me almost spit out my coffee lmao
You probably should spit it out. I heard the creamer was expired.
Such exquisite fartistry!
And some of us just really want fresh healthy food. At least some of us will eat the day old food, but won’t be happy about that being the best choice. But because of polarization and group think, we’re just lumped in with the nazis. The internet is fun.
One side wants a chrisofascist dictatorship, the other wants a corporatocracy. VERY different types of totalitarian governments.
I find it interesting that the hamas Israel conflict has become such a political issue. Support of Israel in general, yeah religiously charged. But Hamas did start the attack and do a ton of fucked up stuff. SO many hostages including Americans. Israel is an oppressive government and from a distance seems systemically racist not just overly defensive. I just feel like this is a more nuanced issue
I just think it’s worth noting that Hamas does call for the destruction of Israel. You can’t discount one set of lost lives for another. The only real victims here are non-Hamas Palestinians
Here’s the reading I can find. US Gov CFR
I’m not finding anything explicit about the destruction of Israel being a Hamas goal which is interesting. I wonder if anyone else can find that source. I would love for that not to be the case
I’m honestly not. I want to learn, especially in times like these where the information warfare is so tough on both sides. These were just the only more academic sources I could find. I’m not saying “I’m right until you prove otherwise” just trying to crowd source research
Hunter has done a lot more worse than that. Nice on you picking and choosing his weakness offences.
Hunter isn’t even in a political office! He shouldn’t even be on anyone’s radar. And you sir/madam are part of the problem.
Get off the internet and stop watching Fox News, it has rotted your brain.
It doesn't matter though, he's not the president and is not involved in any politicalmatters. Sure, he should be investigated if he did something wrong, but why is that relevant?
Both are bad though one is worse but both are shit
Both sides are bad. Yes, one is considerably worse than the other, but that doesn't make the alternative good, it just makes it better.
Good is relative. And relatively speaking, one is definitely good compared to the other.
It's not good of its own merit though, it's only good compared to something worse. Neither party represents the interests of the average working class individual.
Literally nothing is "good of its own merit". Because literally nothing is intrinsically "good".
"Good" is a subjective idea, not objectively measurable, so it will always be in reference to another, i.e. relative.
Maybe for you that's the case, I definitely have a definition of morally good and both sides aren't that. Accepting collateral for example. You can't be good in my book if you're doing that, and they both did.
Nerco-ing a bit:
Can you provide me of an example that is objectively good?
Please don't describe it, simply provide an example.
Okay, let's go with the word "beneficial" then.
Edit: I thought about it more after responding and the Democratic party does occasionally implement policies that are beneficial to the American people. It's just difficult to see that sometimes among all of the pandering to corporate interests. So I concede that occasionally the Dems are beneficial for the working class, and almost/always better than the Republicans.
I don't think you should state this so definitively in a couple sentences, when philosophers whose job it is to figure this out are still pouring out dissertations on this question.
For practical purposes it has been settled. Maybe there is an objective good, but nobody has agreed on it so all we have is subjectivity.
Both are consistent within the confines of the definition.
I'm making assumptions here, but it sounds like you're sarcastically pointing out contradiction.
But there is no contradiction here. "Good" is subjective, and when they subjectively compare the two then one is much better, subjectively
Propagandistic bullshit.
Saying you can't say "both sides suck" means we're stuck with only two and must pick one.
Two is not the only option.
But it's difficult to mobilize the bread eaters as they watch the circus.
ETA for anyone confused, this is not about Hamas v Israel, it's American-centric meme wording.
sort of
But I do think there is a legitimate ACAB angle here, to slice it by power dynamics instead: All political leaders are bastards.
It's not just one nation vs another, it's also civilians vs the political elite. So while I agree it's wrong to say "both sides are equally to blame", there are other useful perspectives. I think.
For me at least, it's more of "conservatives are crazy, conspiracy-led, bigots but liberals are annoying." and this of course only applies to the most outspoken of both sides.
I know plenty of people who vote republican, that are decent people (not antivax, not racist, not homophobic), but are either religious or gun nuts. Hell, I have a coworker that agrees with 95% of democratic policies but will never vote for them because they'll "take his guns." Do I think they're dumb, sure. Do I think they're evil, no?
Liberals I see like vegans. The core messaging is right, but the preachier you get, the more people are going to dislike you, even if they agree with you on principle. Even though I've voted democrat in every election, I couldn't help but roll my eyes when someone told me I should stop using the word "marijuana" because it's racist.
I don't really want to hang out with qanon, racist types or people where I have to be careful of saying "mailman" instead of "mail carrier". Obviously if I had to choose, it'd be the latter, but I don't have to choose because 80% of people aren't that politically motivated every second of their day.
Did he not hear trump say he likes to take the guns first and worry about the law later? Did he not hear trump say China was too soft in Tiananmen Square?
The Democrats are coming for the guns... but so is trump.
You're giving these guys too much credit. They don't follow the news or read anything, ever. This is the same coworker who, when a hasidic Jewish person walked into our shop, said "I thought Amish couldn't work with electricity" and was 100% genuine.
Your absolutely right. Trump gets a pretty failing grade on 2A rights and from a general libertarian measure, and shouldn't even be run on republican tickets. As someone who wants more Democrat aligned things like universal healthcare, UBI, police reform, and tax reform, I want those things from a libertarian framestate where those things are the most effective way for the federal government to provide for the common good with the least amount of bureaucracy and government intrusion into citizen's lives. This means I hold all of my constitutional rights in high regard, the 2nd among them.
I hate having my options being a "choose which rights you least want to lose" adventure game. Since taking the guns is a Democrat plank compared to at least lip service in support at the Republican party level, you get shills like Trump getting the pro gun vote cause he was quiet about it for long enough. Living in the flyovers, I have been voting for my not-anto-gun Democrat at the state level, but I wish i had those options at the House/Senate and Presidental levels too because without RCV my third party votes are basically protest votes. Further off topic, I am getting feed up with more and more libertarian candidates not being libertarian but Christian nationalist lite. The cancer is spreading.
They're all corporatists. They state a couple of libertarian ideals that are in no way reflected in their voting history, and then they go hard for the GOP agenda. I guess that's a good strategy, since most libertarians in the United States seem to actually be Republicans. It is really frustrating being someone who doesn't fully align with either party, and having no other options.
I think the amount of annoying anal liberals such as that is overblown. And whenever I do see that, I see other leftists calling their shit out.
What's really "both sides" is the fact that Democrats don't do enough when they have the chances too, because really the majority opinion of the Democrats is way farther right then people in the US like to admit.
Tbf my way of thinking is probably based off my environment. I live in a liberal area but work in a conservative work environment, so all the conservatives I know don't have Trump flags, stickers, spout antivax shit, etc. but all the liberals I know feel more empowered.
But as far as the political parties themselves go, I agree. Neither side is doing anything to address the class divide, which would help nearly everyone.
Nothing bugs me more than democrats being called the "extreme left" or wtf ever. They're center right, full stop.
Unpopular opinion, if dems ran an leftist they'd sweep it. They can't though because it'd be detrimental to everything they actually care about. Bernie swept that primary year but we all knew they'd never run him.
The Dems have run relative leftists in the past: Bernie Sanders was on the primary ballot in 2020 ... and lost.
If you want to blame anyone: look at our fellow "voters". Asking my under-30 coworkers if they voted in the primary and/or the general election was depressing as fuck.
"The Dems", meaning the DNC, didn't run Sanders, they did everything they could to push him out of the race. Sanders ran Sanders.
What alternative is there to getting preachier? I don’t get in people’s faces, but I understand why people do it. For years, they’ve lightly suggested perhaps making things not terrible, and it’s let the far right get away with heinous shit.
Depends on context. If someone is saying "wow I hate all gays and hope they're put in extermination camps" then sure I'd speak up and tell them they're a piece of shit. If someone says "I think gays should have equal rights but personally I think it's wrong" then I'd shrug it off. I think there's a line between outright hatred and ignorance/cultural/religious-norms that people ignore too much. Qanon type people are too far gone, but the others I think could change, and immediately shutting them down as racists or homophobes doesn't help sway them.
What's the response if someone is making statements like "I think it's important for everyone to get in politics. For instance, I have listened to Mr. Dobadian many times and think he's an excellent candidate." and the first search result for this fictitious person is a speech where he declares; "ALL PEOPLE WITH BROWN EYES NEED TO DROWN IN MUD WATER."?
Shut down the latter person immediately as racist. But what about the first - the person advocating them? What's the right way of disrupting their beliefs without "belittling" them?
"Hey, I listened to that Mr. Dobadian and he sounds crazy. I think you should be careful about listening to him."
"I get that it sounds different for someone indoctrinated by media, but I do think you should give him a chance."
"No, I mean, he literally said that schoolchildren needed to be blown up."
"I don't see value in disingenuously misrepresenting my candidate. I think you're drawing your own extreme conclusions."
"Okay, you know what, screw you, you're just another racist."
"Wow! Immediate shutdown much? Your kind are so intolerant!"
Or, you could ignore these "secondary echos" of the extremist crazies - which is what lead to people in extremist positions spreading their message and getting elected.
So, which is it? Do you interface with them, and make your beliefs known, or not? Keep in mind, you literally won't have all the time in the world to dismantle the lack of logic behind every one of them.
I mean, this made up person definitely sounds difficult to deal with. But this is getting into qanon territory basically, and I don't think the vast majority of conservatives are like that. Plus I believe you can have open discussions and say "I disagree with that entirely" without adding "and you're a bigot" at the end. It's also easier in real life to tell if someone is genuinely hateful or their heart is in the right place but they're a bit of a moron.
My whole gripe with overly-progressives is that they'll completely write someone off as evil for not being progressive enough. It seems you're assuming I'd never speak up against genuine racism, when originally my point was "it's annoying when people tell you saying 'marijuana' or 'mailman' is racist and transphobic.
Man, you'd think so. Wouldn't ya? But I haven't heard that type of discourse in a long time. I know people who accuse anyone who doesn't agree with literally every point they make of being bigots. Just today I was talking with a friend who accused a person with a blended family of being a racist. I see the same thing every single day online. Go find some 10 year old Reddit posts about politics and read the comments, the tone and the communication is completely different than it is now. It's getting pretty bad out there.
Wow! Hateful, much?
I'm kidding there, but maybe you see my point. Just like myself, you've set only a small set of options. Either people are evil, or they're stupid, and no one likes being called either. It's not plausible to completely avoid either label.
The point about marijuana is unfortunately lost on me. If it's a reference to some extremist position, I'm afraid I don't necessarily follow.
Can't we just vote in someone completely new for once.
We actually did that recently. His name was Donald Trump.
Completely new... seen partying with the existing cabal in 1990's and also affiliated with the sex island pedophile ring that nobody ever got in trouble for.
Phew man what a savior of the country.
After we get rid of First Past the Post voting.
Ranked Choice Voting baby! It'll never fucking happen because it would work.
No.
The way the US democracy works, attempting this would be too dangerous i.e. either all your fellow voters agree with you or you lose. How sure are you about winning this?
I wonder if the people telling everyone that nobody else will vote third party has anything to do with people thinking nobody else will vote third party and then not voting 3rd party as a result.
No. It's just a really bad idea to vote third party, because of the spoiler effect. A strong third party would only destroy the party it is more aligned with.
You realize this left vs. right alignment shit was created because the rich and powerful wants the regular poors to keep an us vs. them mindset so we'll never leave this stupid 2 party system that only serves to benefit them.
I didn't even talk about left or right. Also the spoiler effect is just a consequence of the voting system.
I just want a different political party to get on the ballet at least once, at this point I don't even care which one. I'm just sick and tired of this bullshit.
A federal republic is a type of democracy. Often those that make this hard distinction are thinking republic vs direct democracy, which while accurate doesn’t capture the democracy most people are referring to when they say the US is a democracy. They mean the US is a modern liberal democracy, which it is, and has the constitutional federal republic style of government. I point this out not to nitpick, but because the right has used the argument that the US isn’t a democracy to justify eroding our rights.
Help get rid of First Past the Post voting, and your dream might become closer to a reality.
Thing is, you need to be able to compromise somewhat, when it comes to politics. And many aren't ready for that.
I'll gladly compromise as long as it means there's more choices in the future.
This shit is like being vender locked where the only choice is between 2 really shit monopolies.
If you so easily dismiss democracy you can easily dismiss the constitution also. Soon there will be no republic either.
Both sides have always been bad?
Has always been
This is an ancient opinion. People have been complaining about America's two party system for literal centuries.
I thought this was about Israel doing a genocide because people (especially Israeli people) can't separate Hamas from Palestine.
But everyone seems to be taking it as a commentary on the two party system despite only one of these things being new to this year?
The ideological signifying here, though, is squarely situated within the language of American politics. All Lives Matter was a reactionary counter to Black Lives Matter, a distinctly American political movement. Similarly, "both sides suck" is something which has been repeated ad nauseam about American politics. As such, the meme suggests itself that it's about American politics. At least that's how I'm reading it. If the OP meant it to be about Israel and Palestine, I think they could have framed it better.
Also, the guy in the meme is a.. checks notes.. Canadian that goes around debating freshmen at American college campuses.
I prefer to refer to him as "failed comedian Stephen Crowder."
'Successful abuser' works as well.
Palestine itself is a two party system. Hamas vs Fatah, the former controls the Gaza Strip, the latter controls the West Bank (specifically the areas not occupied by Israel)
George Washington warned Americans about the dangers of a two party system. That's how far back it goes.
Show me any decision of consequence in life that doesn’t have a downside. There are no perfect choices, just less bad ones. And in the 2024 US election there’s one choice that’s a lot worse than the other.
What annoys me is that we're pretending the vote at this stage is still a binary one. It isn't too late to have a Democratic primary.
It may not technically be too late, but everyone who has a say about it has nixed the idea.
A primary SHOULD happen, hopefully with someone much better than the Senator from MBNA winning it, but it's not going to. The corrupt establishment protects their own.
Then do not support it! Help us tear it down!
Eat less meat?
Ok, that’s the downside, what was the decision?
Both sides is older than any of us. Enlightened centrism is a plague on intelligence
The problem isn't that I want to be a centrist because I think it's correct. It's because this country is going to fucking shit with the deadlock on any kind of cooperation.
Constantly volleying for further extremes correct or not is why we can't get a budget approved, why even with the ACA it got stripped to fucking Bits when the next presidency swung around.
The reality is you want to be bringing in more voters by being more palatable and not pushing them away by drawing a line in the sand for EVERY single issue. No I'm a better liberal! No I'm a better liberal look at me virtue signal.
It's fucking exhausting.
Abso-fuckin-lutely
https://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/the-centrist-delusion-middle-ground-politics-arent-moderate-theyre-dangerous/
I get why people want to choose the smaller evil but sometimes it's necessary to point out all evils and head towards a stateless society.
But maybe that's the difference between "both sides bad" and "two sides bad"
Can't we start a 'We all suck' movement. There are shitty people of all races, genders, ethnicities, religions, or whatever. Once we all embrace that we can all evolve and work against them.
Good luck, when people have a literal moral superiority complex most of their lives.
The way I see it in the face of climate change disaster literally neither side is going to save us. That is the most important thing to me right now.
It's already too late, but it's even later to reduce the impact.
It’s not just this year
To your point, I would contend every year in every two party system in existence has always been a "both sides bad" year ;p
I've found people on here actually arguing that hamas is unambiguously right in their actions. Unlike black lives matter where saying white lives don't matter is a complete straw man that no one was arguing. So making sure people are on the same page about Hamas I think is valuable still.
I think a lot of people are in denial about who and what Hamas is.
You know your take is "How dare they fighting against being genocided" they should let Isreal drop bombs at them and kill their families daily like the last half century and never ever retaliate while the world watchs in silence or even help Isreal doing the massacre. How inhuman of them to fight back with the same ferocity the Isreali settlers fucks has shown to them. Oh, look at the Poor isreali settlers that left their western country to go and steal a palistinian land and act towards them worst than during apartheid SA. Yeah, hamas are freedom fighters and isreali propagandists call them terrorists to delegitimize Palestinians fight against fucking genocide.
I geuss when someone enters your home and beat the shit out of you and your family, Steal and destroy all your belongings every other day you just accept it and will not defend yourself, huh?
Fighting against being genocided is legitimate !
Both sides bad is used by those whose privilege protects them from the ravages of the system they support.
This is international law. We must uphold international law and promote human rights, because any society that does not, puts the whole world closer to barbarism.
International laws that isreal keep violating over and over and the world stay silent. They even kill journalists for god sake !! The world has shown us its true colors but thanks God the new generation is waking up. In the future, these laws will hopefully be truly followed.
Depends on the issue. Queerphobics vs "woke ideology"? One denys a minority the right to exist and tries everything to make them miserable (including bringing them to the point of suicide) whilst the other sometimes maybe overshoots a little. There's no "muh, bOtH sIdEs" here.
Isreal and Palestina? Hamas is a terror organization hiding behind civilians, in hospitals etc, risking innocent palestinian lives (and there are innocent civilians in Palestine) whilst the israeli government conducts policies of illegal settling or funding of Hamas to stay in power and facilitate a public enemy. Both sides here do abhorrent things on the back of innocent civilian lives, but both do have reasons.
All in all, this meme is perfect. The stupid and idiotic person depicted fits the stupid and undifferentiated caption very well.
(And yes, I know this text will start a comment war about Israel and Palestine because too many people feel like they have to pick a side and defend everything that side does. I will not participate though.)
I’m sorry, you are obviously extremely antisemitic for suggesting Israel can do anything bad.
We will need you to condemn Hamas at least 172% more.
Fuck Hamas and anyone who supports their terrorism!
Fuck the Israeli government and anyone who supports their terrorism!
New socially acceptable ways to say “I don’t give a crap”.
I disagree. If I'm being honest, I care too much, but I'm overwhelmed by a combination of sadness, anger and fear. I have no idea where to start to fix our societal problems. Anyone who sticks their neck out gets their head cut off. Look at what they're doing to Assange for exposing the truth. Every president since Nixon has been a fucking war criminal.
Hence people falling back to “I don’t care” as a defense mechanism. The world is too big, and there’s too much awful happening, to emotionally invest in all of it. Not and stay sane. It’s so much easier to narrow focus to your own life and pursuits, and let everything else be what it is.
And so we get these useless platitudes, because “I don’t care about that” can be both true and socially unacceptable at the same time.
I can't believe I escaped Reddit just to fall back in the same political controversy here as well x-x
"Both sides bad" has been going on for decades. Hell you could probably make an argument for at least a century now.
You are right, there will be people who remain to not buy into the side of the moral grandstanders and they will be shamed incessantly for it and grouped in the same bin as the extreme right even though that is very far from their position.
They do suck, but the GOP is significantly worse in every way: It's all about the least shitty choice in the United States which is why we need ranked choice voting so badly.
Yeah, people need to stop condemning plaestinians for resisting genocide.
Oh this is about voting lol.
You know, this shit is frustrating. Imagine every day everyone has to vote whether 10 people in lets say a group of 30 will be hit with a bat 4 times or 5 times, and everyone else gets hit once.
And you talk to the other people, and say "we have to stop these people hitting us with bats or we're all going to die" and they respond with "but you're going to vote for those people to be hit four times, right? Getting hit 5 times is much worse! We have to devote all our time and effort to making sure the 4 times option wins!" And of course they're one of the people who only gets hit once either way.
It's not good vs evil. It's devil you know vs devil you don't. Except if Trump wins the primary, you probably know both devils.
I typed out a like 6 paragraph explanation of why it’s both of their faults that this is happening. Suffice to say that this is just the latest iteration of a fight that’s been going on for a very VERY long time. At times the Palestinians were in control and horrible, and now the Jews are returning the favor. These two assholes have done nothing but make it worse every time they got a chance to make it better.
That’s why I literally don’t care what happens to either. They are both horrible and I’m a poor person on the other side of the world. Even IF I cared. I lack the money and resources to do anything about it, and debating with people on the internet about things that we can’t change and don’t fully understand is a modern day Sisyphean task.
Edit: wait are we talking US politics? In that case both sides do suck. But one is trying to kill trans and gay people and I can’t support that. So, Biden it is.
The meme itself isn't about U.S. politics( at least I don't perceive it that way, I see it more general since I have seen this argument in a lot of situations while not being american), but the overwhelmingly american majority of users want to make it about a U.S. election.
You nailed it.
Could you fill this in for me, please?
https://links.rocks/pictrs/image/93f268f2-d608-4e94-86a8-680cb8c9249c.jpeg
It doesn’t matter what I think the borders should be. I have no sway over that. Not only do I not have a dog in this fight. I don’t find it entertaining to debate it. I have read a nauseating amount of material about this subject. I have watched enough videos on this subject to be considered torture, and in the end. I can’t help but feel like both of these assholes are made for each other.
But like I said. My feelings mean absolutely nothing. Because I am just a random weirdo on the internet, just like you. Just like you, I don’t have the money or influence to bring peace to the Middle East. Just like you, I did what I felt was enough research and then made a decision. Just like you this conversation isn’t going to sway me. But more importantly. Just like you my feelings on the subject won’t change anything. Innocent people are going to die regardless of what we say. It’s a tragedy, but it’s true.
So, I guess what I’m saying is… Maybe we should agree to disagree.
I also thought it was about Israël and Palestine. You are absolutely right, also the 3 noes didn't help. For anyone that doesn't know
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khartoum_Resolution
At some point the Arabic countries said
No peace with Israel, No negotiation with Israel, No recognition of Israel
This really didn't help at all and basically made the conflict much worse to resolve.
Thanks for the link, I didn't know that. There's also the first "no" which was the Arabs saying no to the UN partition plan of mandatory Palestine.
It reminds me of the buzz on twitter last year about "how much land should Ukraine cede to Russia in exchange for peace" and the general concensus there was also "no".
Tbh I respect your honesty much more than the cowards who share your opinion but try to stay on their moral high horse by saying "well akshually, both sides bad". If you think Palestinians should get genocided, just say it. If you don't care, just say it. If you do care, just say it.
MLK Jr. had a similar idea about the "moderate white", and there's a good Elie Wiesel quote in the same vein:
The idea that pointing out that modern "democracy" is a sham that's hurting us all in the name of capitalism, is in any way comparable to a racist dog whistle, only goes to show your privilege and wilful ignorance
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/08/22/american-democracy-was-never-designed-to-be-democratic-eric-holder-our-unfinished-march-nick-seabrook-one-person-one-vote-jacob-grumbach-laboratories-against-democracy
https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/10/14/liberalism-and-fascism-partners-in-crime/
https://truthout.org/articles/fascism-is-possible-not-in-spite-of-liberal-capitalism-but-because-of-it/
https://nyanarchist.wordpress.com/2019/01/23/scratch-a-liberal-a-fascist-bleeds-how-the-so-called-middle-class-has-enabled-oppression-for-centuries/