Over and over — and especially this week — prominent voices on the right argue that their problem is solely that the other side can’t think for itself.
Both sides should avoid this trap. Lazy and stupid and makes for bad faith debates absent of substance.
There are plenty of people on both the left and the right who don’t think for themselves. but whether a person regurgitates a talking point, or comes up with an original idea, has no bearing on the merit of that talking point or idea.
Both sides have valid issues in complaints. Both sides have crappy issues and complaints. Neither side is perfect. Both sides need to realize that they themselves are not perfect.
Clever, and not invalid. But it also ignores the point I was making.
I’m NOT trying to minimize the shitty things GOP has done recently. The Karl Rove strategy of pandering to religious social conservatives has caused more pain for this country than can be put into words. Just like McCain legitimizing Sarah Palin (although he redeemed himself with Obamacare), legitimizing the ‘Evangelical’ political position is damn near unforgiveable. And as a single strategy that has done more to tear our country apart than anything DNC’s done. So please don’t think I’m excusing the GOP’s sins.
What I AM saying, is that whatever their sins may be, they don’t always get it wrong all the time. Nobody does. Democrats don’t always get it right all the time. Nobody does.
And thus it’s dangerous for anyone (on either side) to fall into the logical trap of ‘I’m a good person, a smart person, I’ve decided this is right. Therefore, everyone who thinks it’s wrong must be a dumb person or a bad person’.
I believe every American should judge each argument on its own merits, regardless of its source. And if the result is always that blue is right and red is wrong, so be it-- but that should NEVER lead to complacency where blue is always assumed to be right and red is always assumed to be wrong (or vice versa) with analysis or debate deemed unnecessary.
That is a VERY dangerous slippery slope that has, historically, led to some very dark places.
I definitely don’t think blue is always right. Been a long time since I’ve seen them be less wrong than red though. And, I’ve seen what they do when we let them have power these days.
I will vote against red at every level, from local on up, because they have shown me (and all of us) who they are. I believe Republicans in power are a worse thing for this country than any likely negative impact from voting blue.
In the meantime, I’ll hope that blue become better at living up to something more than just not being red.
Maybe R will reform themselves enough to be trusted with adult things before I die of old age. I’m not holding my breath.
Regardless, I appreciate your nuanced rebuttal, and can see that your aim was not as it appeared to me. However, I like to remind folks at every opportunity that influencers in online discussions who do “both sides” an argument are never doing it to promote balance, even though they always try to frame it that way. They are doing it to help one particular side.
For that reason, I still stand by the comment, am glad it was well received by others, and hope it will shape how they evaluate that sort of argument when it comes up.
Both sides should avoid this trap. Lazy and stupid and makes for bad faith debates absent of substance. There are plenty of people on both the left and the right who don’t think for themselves. but whether a person regurgitates a talking point, or comes up with an original idea, has no bearing on the merit of that talking point or idea.
Both sides have valid issues in complaints. Both sides have crappy issues and complaints. Neither side is perfect. Both sides need to realize that they themselves are not perfect.
Like nearly every single “both sides” argument in all of online history, this one fulfills one of these two roles:
You’ll nearly never see a “both sides” argument in the wild that does one of these things:
You may draw your own conclusions from that, gentle reader.
Edit: Removed the hyperbole.
Clever, and not invalid. But it also ignores the point I was making.
I’m NOT trying to minimize the shitty things GOP has done recently. The Karl Rove strategy of pandering to religious social conservatives has caused more pain for this country than can be put into words. Just like McCain legitimizing Sarah Palin (although he redeemed himself with Obamacare), legitimizing the ‘Evangelical’ political position is damn near unforgiveable. And as a single strategy that has done more to tear our country apart than anything DNC’s done. So please don’t think I’m excusing the GOP’s sins.
What I AM saying, is that whatever their sins may be, they don’t always get it wrong all the time. Nobody does. Democrats don’t always get it right all the time. Nobody does.
And thus it’s dangerous for anyone (on either side) to fall into the logical trap of ‘I’m a good person, a smart person, I’ve decided this is right. Therefore, everyone who thinks it’s wrong must be a dumb person or a bad person’.
I believe every American should judge each argument on its own merits, regardless of its source. And if the result is always that blue is right and red is wrong, so be it-- but that should NEVER lead to complacency where blue is always assumed to be right and red is always assumed to be wrong (or vice versa) with analysis or debate deemed unnecessary.
That is a VERY dangerous slippery slope that has, historically, led to some very dark places.
I definitely don’t think blue is always right. Been a long time since I’ve seen them be less wrong than red though. And, I’ve seen what they do when we let them have power these days.
I will vote against red at every level, from local on up, because they have shown me (and all of us) who they are. I believe Republicans in power are a worse thing for this country than any likely negative impact from voting blue.
In the meantime, I’ll hope that blue become better at living up to something more than just not being red.
Maybe R will reform themselves enough to be trusted with adult things before I die of old age. I’m not holding my breath.
Regardless, I appreciate your nuanced rebuttal, and can see that your aim was not as it appeared to me. However, I like to remind folks at every opportunity that influencers in online discussions who do “both sides” an argument are never doing it to promote balance, even though they always try to frame it that way. They are doing it to help one particular side.
For that reason, I still stand by the comment, am glad it was well received by others, and hope it will shape how they evaluate that sort of argument when it comes up.
BoTh SiDeS aRe ThE sAmE!!!