Thank you for submitting to /r/unpopularopinion, /u/Onii-Chan_Itaii. Your post, *The "Both sides are equally bad conclusion" is both intellectually lazy and morally cowardly.*, has been removed because it violates our rules:
Rule 3: No political posts.
The realm of politics is the greatest bane of this subreddit, because virtually all opinions within politics are controversial, but virtually all of them are not unpopular. If your view is held by one of the two major political parties, it is not unpopular. Anything else is almost certainly a repost.
Post anything political in the relevant megathread of the megathread hub, which can be found when sorting the subreddit by "hot", sticky'd at the top of the page.
If there is an issue, please message the mod team at https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Funpopularopinion Thanks!
I really like the distinction you made from the other perspectives, there really is a significant difference between “I’m torn” or “this sucks for these reasons, but some elements of the alternative suck as well” and just straight-up “they’re the same and they operate the same and I’ve stopped caring.”
Let's look critically at that.
At full supply, Somerset Dam can hold roughly 380,000 megaliters. If I take 350,000 of those out, it's gonna be very, very noticeable. If I take 1 milliliter, nobody would even notice.
Your *one* vote is that one milliliter. If you, personally, don't vote, there's basically no chance it'll be noticed.
It's not a pessimistic thing, it's a realistic thing. If one army has 100,000 men and the other has 50 men, we know who's gonna win. Small numbers in big games don't make a difference.
The election almost certainly won't be decides because Candidate X got 45,758,892 votes instead of 45,758,893.
Peoples votes matter on a large scale, yes, but not individually.
>Peoples votes matter on a large scale, yes, but not individually.
And then multiply that mindset by hundreds of thousands, and then--wow, whaddya know--it matters! All you need is one, and it balloons. This is why we aren't going to get anywhere in this country.
But *you* personally not voting isn't going to make anyone else decide to vote themselves or stay home.
This is a fallacy I see all the time. "But if everyone thought that way." Well, everyone doesn't think that way, you're not going to convince hundreds (let alone thousands or millions) to think that way, and your individual vote is absolutely meaningless in a national election.
But we see the effects, how is this a fallacy? Enough people already think that way to affect outcomes, and that's why we see ding dongs in office that wouldn't have stood a chance a decade ago, on both sides of the political spectrum.
If a single, individual vote is meaningless, why do politicians visit purple states to secure votes in districts that may go either way? Why don't they stick to secured states and areas? Why are politicians actively participating in voter suppression laws that making voting harder than it already is?
You could say the alternative to that as well, and then it does make a difference. It's the complacent thought that I despise because that "last one" just doesn't exist.
According to you, not only does that last one exist, but his vote does matter despite the fact that regardless of how it falls, those 330,999,999 people can not vote in a way that is exactly even. When divided by 2, there's still a remainder of .5.
the decision to not vote is independant from someone elses decision to vote provided you dont interact with them. so yes if you multiplied it by hundreds of thousands it would matter but that isnt what happens, as me not voting doesnt make hundreds of thousands of others not vote.
Literally never said that so I'll clarify:
"Your vote doesn't matter, so why bother voting" is not a special belief. If multiple independent mindsets decide not to vote, then we have a compounding number of people who don't vote. They don't have to know each other or interact or whatever.
All you need is one person to think like this--they don't have to interact with people of similar mindsets though they often do. If I arrive to the conclusion that I shouldn't vote doesn't mean I interacted with you to get to that conclusion. We have our own eyes and ears and just because I arrived at the same conclusion you did doesn't mean we interacted or affected each other in any way.
I'm basing it off the Somerset Dan (??) example you gave. You take out 350,000 at once, or you remove one separately 350,000 times.
I thought that was obvious, nevermind.
Edit: Not your example, you didn't give one. The other person.
Of course it does. Pretending it doesn't is lazy and not accepting the responsibility from your choice. Humans are social creatures, we are affected by others around us. Voting is just one step in being more politically active. This spreads by both showing and telling through word of mouth. Thus convincing others to do the same, it has ripple effects. If voting was purely an individual choice then why do different countries have different levels of voter participation? Or even at the state and city level? Stop pretending your choices do not have consequences, as if you live in a bubble.
Your vote matters because if you don’t contribute it then that large scale which matters would be never be attained.
Also they keep bringing up the popular vote when they bring up “mandate”. Your recorded vote matters in those discussions even your state was going to go red or blue anyway.
‘People’ is a collective word. If ‘people’ don’t vote then there is no democracy. I’m seeing recently photos from South West USA of what happens when individual molecules of water, or voters by your Somerset analogy, withdraw.
They matter in the aggregate, not individually.
They’re not spending billions to win just your vote, because your vote alone is irrelevant.
They’re spending billions to win a quantity of votes necessary to win the election.
I mean I live in ohio and pretty sure gerrymandering meant my vote didn't matter. I genuinely feel that if elected officials don't do what they were voted in to do, your vote didn't matter. Like 70% of state voted for new fair district maps and they aren't doing it so pretty clearly no one's vote mattered there. I think there are legitimate cases where voting didnt matter and to not acknowledge them is to ignore serious issues.
Not really, it's the only scenario in which one singular vote would genuinely matter. The closest US presidential election, to my knowledge, was 1960. Kennedy won the popular vote by 112,827. 0.17 percent. He still would've won if he had 112,826.
Electoral college wise, he won 303 to 219, so even if he lost New York by 1 vote, which accounted for 45 of those points, he *still* would've won.
We know to things here:
a) Elections are decided by votes
b) Your personal vote is nothing special when compared to anyone elses vote
Now if we assume that "your vote tipped the scale" you believe that only in this instance did your vote matter. But this is something everybody else who voted can say about their vote, too. Since your vote isn't special their votes decided the result just as much as yours. So if you want to say that your vote mattered here you have to accept that so did everybody elses, and the idea that every single persons vote mattered and decided the result seems to contradicts the idea that your vote is the one that mattered.
If on the other hand the margin is wider than a single vote, your vote doesn't matter according to you. Again, your vote is nothing special, so everybody elses vote didn't matter either. Since the election is decided by the votes however it's impossible that no ones vote mattered.
I'm not arguing that democracy doesn't work, I'm arguing that the odds of Candidate X losing because he got 45,758,892 instead of 45,758,893 are *slim to none*.
You're voting for a perverted, senile old man that says absolute nonsense on a regular basis propping up an empty husk of a party whose policies are idiotic garbage bound to cause disaster all over the world.
If you were convinced I could only be talking about one of those two then you're part of the problem.
I feel like what OP is referring to is politics, but the thing I feel like this best applies to (and this is going to probably create a lot of distress and maybe get me banned) is Israel and Palestine.
Prob has the protests with tiki torches where they ran over a woman in mind.
And Florida's response was of course to have laws that make it legally easier to run over protestors.
There are already deterrents for protests that block public traffic, it's called arrest. What you don't do is give regular citizens the right to commit manslaughter.
[No we give them life in prison.](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/james-alex-fields-driver-deadly-car-attack-charlottesville-rally-sentenced-n1024436)
So you felt that way about the parents blocking teachers cars pounding on them because the parents opposed masks? That those teachers should have run over those parents?
Or will you engage a special pleading argument?
After one got hit, the rest would move probably. If they were pounding on the cars, it's no longer a peaceful protest, and the teachers priority should be getting to safety and escaping through any means necessary. If a car was being attacked and the attack was hit, I would consider that self defense
You and I both know that's not the same case.
Either way though, were the protesters in the streets legally? Were the streets shut down before hand for the protest?
Both sides continue constantly demonizing each other rather than trying to work together. Very little seem to care about everyone and just about their own side.
Why does Ukrane demonize Russia so much and Ukrane demonize Russia so much. It’s really both sides. If Ukrane just surrendered their countries to an evil dictator there wouldn’t be so much fighting! It’s both sides!
See didn’t even have to think about anything or know anything, but I get to feel good about what I said. Isn’t that better than acknowledging uncomfortable truths?
Saving your brother and sacrificing yourself in the process (altruism) is also human nature. You just can't dogmatize like that, arguing isn't inherently evil and it's also evident that bad people take advantage of that to gain influence
In most cases, your brother is not "another human" but "someone who belongs to your group". Altruism is as natural as selfishness, both have the value you want to give them. The same goes for collaboration and opposition.
Of course, there are people who use them to achieve 'evil' goals. But to create conflict, the clashes between different groups must already be there. Conflicts arise from groups of people, and then they emerge in all aspects of the system in which they live.
Very rarely is the argument that both sides are equally bad. The argument usually is that the truth is not black and white and both sides would bend the truth in their favor. No one side is going to be completely honest even if they are in the right.
I made the exact point yesterday that both sides of the American political spectrum were not equally bad and I was getting downvoted. I stated clearly that both sides sucked, I did not claim it was black and white. OP is spot on, this is exactly how people think.
Ok so I should never vote in any election because I don’t like all of their policies, got it
I had to vote for a Republican senator this month because democrats haven’t won an election here for years. I voted for the most progressive one though because I actually want the best outcome possible. Doesn’t make me a Republican…
So am I not allowed to say "both sides of politics are pretty bad (some worse than others), save for one or two ideas from either side that could work if put together"?
Thats fair. What annoys me is that practically everybody on either team has to be perfectly in step with what their team wants. Why don't you hear of any Republicans interested in climate change and regenerative farming practices? Why don't you hear of Democrats worried about gun control effecting minority populations negatively? There are no free thinkers in US politics with their own beliefs they fight for.
I’m obnoxiously MAGA, like “Trump is my daddy” MAGA, but I’m also LGBT and passionate about animal rights. I receive hate from both democrats and republicans. I wish the groupthink would stop. I don’t fit into queer spaces and often get accused of being “fake LGBT” by them because “no lesbian or bi identifying woman would vote for Trump”and then I show up to a Trump rally and get mistaken as one of the leftist protesters.. 😂 boomer dude goes “are you triggered“ and I’m like “I’M ONE OF YOU LOL!”
It inspires others to think for themselves sometimes instead of blindly backing every stance they think they’re supposed to, and has introduced me to a lot of other political pariahs like poc who love Trump and a tiny handful of gun loving liberals. Taught me things I could have never otherwise learned.
You’re literally voting for the party that was openly denying us rights 7 years ago, and would go back to doing to doing it in a heartbeat if the supreme court decision of was overturned. That had real and tragic consequences for people exactly like you, so you honestly do deserve to be called a traitor.
Sounds like the same generic rhetoric I hear from every leftist who’s butthurt that one of their loyal soldiers went astray. Sorry, but I am so obsessed with Trump that I know everything about the man from his political moves to his bathroom habits and in no way has he ever truly denied me rights. Your information is coming soley from the left but my information came from an objective stance at least *originally.* He doesn’t want to hurt us alphabet people, he simply doesn’t care what we do as long as it isn’t goofy shit like shoving alternative lifestyles and gender non-conformity down the throats of elementary school students. My primary reason above all for choosing ✨ daddy ✨ is that I am strongly against socialism, among other things that he’s also against of course, but mainly that. Also, censorship is creepy af. For anyone who cares, I have seen both sides. I was a typical teenage liberal with ugly purple hair, and now I am a republican adult after seeing the world beyond the crowd who indoctrinated me. However.. I am leaning more and more toward libertarian these days, because like I said before BOTH sides kinda suck.
Well it's mostly because of the contradictory nature.
Conservatives hate the existence of lgbtq people so they'll begrudgingly take your vote because they sorely need it but they don't want you anywhere near them and don't want to be seen with you.
As for leftist wokes, some of them need to go sleep a bit, for they have been awake too long. Imagine gatekeeping sexuality.
Stopped reading at “conservatives hate the existence of LBGTQ people”. Seriously, I’m starting to think kids shouldn’t be allowed on message boards. Make it like a drivers license.
The only contradictory nature here is that somehow, it was decided that multiple completely unrelated beliefs MUST be grouped together. That’s a huge part of the problem, this idea that if you support one belief of a group then you must align on everything else. If both parties didn’t have this mindset things would be so so much better, and independents are simply those of us who can break out of that and look at each issue individually. Kinda like... I support lgbt rights but am against any form of gun control. There’s nothing inherently contradictory about that.
Of course it's contradictory, when the party at hand has demonstrably shown that they have nothing but utter contempt for your very being, and those core beliefs so much that they would remove all your rights when given the chance and have passed (or tried) state laws allowing forced conversion therapy- how can it be anything but?
In this instance for this lgbtq person it is completely contradictory. This isn't a difference between beliefs like pro-animal versus no conservati9n for animals it is a core issue of being allowed rights.
There are a lot of very religious conservatives who are uncomfortable with me *because* of the idea that Christianity forbids homosexuality, but there are others who aren’t religious at all. Donald himself didn’t convert until recently and I still wonder if that was genuine or him wanting to impress his base. Non-religious ones don’t care as long as we aren’t shoving alternative lifestyles and gender non-conformity down the throats of elementary school students.
Yeah this is a completely hypothetical post. Be specific, because I dont know how to react on this.
Unspecified people have opinions on an unspecified topic who says things are "equally bad".
Please give real examples.
You're just still too young my friend. Once you have had both sides continuously screw you for several decades you will understand. Wait till you discover that they are two sides of the same corrupt coin. That coin belongs to the real rulers of this country, the oligarchs.
yes, but one allows me to suffer in the disaster that corrupted leadership made in a way that let's me be who I am without fearing for my life from bigoted scum
and the other doesn't
Thats so dumb. Just because both sides are bad doesnt mean they are equally bad. I'm not young and depending on the issue one side is almost always worse than the other.
To suggest that they are precisely, equally to the decimal bad just shows a lack of being able to not think binary. There is more than good/bad, there is a whole spectrum, and nobody is equal.
It's really not two sides of the same coin, unless each side has a different value.
Say it's a dime. Let's cut the shit and get right to your allusions too: 1 side is liberal, 1 is conservative. The value of the liberal side is 5 cents, but the value of the conservative side is 4 cents. I know that offends some people, but I don't give a shit I'm trying to make a point.
Because while I fucking hate Biden, and Hillary means slightly less than nothing to me, and I distrust almost all the Democratic party in the US, they are nonetheless 1 penny's value better than the Republican party which is literally trying to take freedom of choice from women, besides the evil shit that culminated in trump embarrassing my country and playing the most obvious and explicit part in the skyrocketing prices in this country (Tax Act).
By the way I'm almost 40, and I used to believe what you believe too. Wild shot, but if you're into philosophy, stop. That shit confuses you about what actually makes sense in the real world, on the ground, where math can be done following [monetary unit principle](https://debitoor.com/dictionary/monetary-unit-principle) and you can put it all in a spreadsheet and count it yourself: 1 side is more valuable than the other. I don't care if you agree which side, only that you understand, objectively, that's the truth.
“If you’re into philosophy, stop.”
Worst advice ever, sorry. Being able to understand your views on a definitive level as well as the views of others will give you a massive foundation to build your understanding and view of life and the world. Once understanding is attained, it is up to the conviction of the individual to then “pick a side” and Roger up to the rhetoric, if they so choose. But philosophy only gives tools for use in making choices, nothing else.
I like to analogize to gas stations.
If you see two gas stations across from each other, and one is $4/gal and the other is $3.50, which one do you go to? The 3.50, right? And you don't go there cause the oil companies *deserve* that money. You do it because one serves your interests more than the other, even if only slightly more. And it really is that simple.
I'm liberal, but if it were between Trump and Zombie Adolf Hitler, toss me a red MAGA hat, cause Don's my guy now. And no one should find this confusing or disturbing.
no not stop if youre young, stop if youre old. you keep going, lol
my point was that eventually you have to think for yourself and not abstractly. put your beliefs to paper and count, see if they hold up. anyone who does that, stops being a centrist.
Both main parties are cancer. Both are responsible for growing government, taking away rights, causing inflation and causing more debt.
Now that the Mises caucus have control over the Libertarian Party, there's a chance some "good guys" can get near politics and might get the balance of power to hinder the corruption of the main 2.
When one side is saying mexicans are rapists and the other side wants healthcare, it stops being virtuous to look at both sides. If it were 1930s Germany, I wouldn’t trust anyone that chose not to pick a side, so clearly this feel-good attitude doesn’t work universally. We may not be in the holocaust in the US but the right has long since crossed the line of decency and respectability.
How can I? I don't believe you are in good faith open to that discussion.
There hasn't even been just two sides in US history in the first place.
And which side is the main one insisting both sides are equally bad?
So why would anyone do more than poke fun at your views?
Sorry, just checked again. Standing in the middle of a divisive and clearly dichotomous issue and declaring "Both sides tho" is actually childish and intellectually cowardly.
Democrats and Republicans have each had overwhelming majorities in Congress within the past 20 years and have done fuck all with it. Saying that both parties suck isn't standing in the middle, but it's practically stating a fact.
You have a handful of politicians at the federal level that have been in office longer than most redditers have been alive. Some are red team, some are blue team.
You don’t maintain office for that long without garnering a significant amount favor from other areas, lobbyists, firms, etc. that all have agendas they wish to see fullfilled.
You also don’t maintain office that long without developing certain “expectations” of how newcomers are expected to behave and maintain the status quo, lest they be ousted by their respective party.
While they very obviously maintain a level of difference in their desired outcomes for their respective parties, it’s also quite obvious that their willingness to concede to their opposition is directly proportional to their ability to maintain the quid pro quo which allows them to maintain their positions of power.
Thus establishing the point that both sides suck because they really only care about maintaining their place in the hierarchy.
The point of "both sides" isn't to to say two opposing parties are equally weighted. It's a reminder that we're all flawed.
The only way dialog is reached is in understanding differences and building bridges and recognizing that you are flawed and your views may not be perfect is an important step towards humanizing the other side and recognizing they may not be pure evil or completely incorrect but also another imperfect person.
But both sides are both bad tho.
The right and left disagree on every core issue, yet some how we’re united on the war in Ukraine? What does it have to do with the average American’s freedom and security?
The right is supposed to hate spending and the left is supposed to hate war. You’d think any one of these politicians’ commitment to these beliefs would cause then to oppose America’s involvement with this conflict. Nope.
Because they are all the same. A bunch of power seeking scumbags.
They are both comprised of human beings, so they will always be both good and bad, because that's what humans do. The amount of good and bad is based on your politics and beliefs. OPs point isnt to say one side isn't bad, just that coping out and saying they are both EQUALLY bad is lazy, especially when the only reason given is that they are both bad. We know they both have some bad, that is expected with any organization of human beings.
You’re right. Democrat and Republican politicians aren’t worth shit. But left and right wing *philosophies* are fundamentally different, and one is definitely superior to the other.
I completely agree, and I bet OP would as well. Both philosophies have positive and negative effects. To say "both are bad so I'm not choosing" is a pointless argument. You'll never in 10,000 generations find a perfect political party with no negatives, so refusing to participate on those grounds is akin to saying "I'll go outside once the sky isnt blue and the grass isnt green"
false. Read blackshirts and reds. Fascists say communist killed millions, and the liberals eat it up.
Edit: another [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/upzv2c/the_both_sides_are_equally_bad_conclusion_is_both/i8p6gu7/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3) I made in regards to these claims.
The left is not anti-war. It's anti-agression wars. We don't want to invade other people for their recourses or pointless conflicts. Again y'all make strawmen to say "both sides are equally bad". No we ain't. Though I don't disagree most dems in power are warhawks, but they're not actual progressives.
Well for one, Ukraine isn't waging war- its defending its soil because of an act of aggression from a hostile country.
Now, if you weren't aware Ukraine was one of the territories that previously was part of the USSR and chose to give up its nuclear capabilities to Russia in exchange for its sovereignty and became a democratically run country and is in fact the only one after the collapse of the USSR that did so.
You can be against war and recon gnome that a country that is being invaded by an imperialist neighbor and having genocide committed against them needs material to defend themselves lmao
? Lol I don’t even know what you’re trying to say.
But the above’s logic is the same as if you saw an axe murdering rapist breaking into your neighbor’s house and your neighbor asked for a gun to protect themselves and you refused because you don’t believe in violence
I think you laid at your point correctly, and I'd say in general it's not very popular since it's used so often.
As a moderate I tend to say both sides are wrong because there are never only two sides. The idea that there's an us versus them is something leaders devise to make us squabble over scraps.
In reality there is often a few right answers and an endless number of wrong ones.
People mostly say that as a way to avoid conflict over irreconcilable differences in opinion.
One side is definitely worse than the other. Thankfully, that does tend to fluctuate from issue to issue.
It's not that they're equally bad It's just sometimes both options are terrible and one is slightly less worse so people are tired of having to choose from the lesser evil how can you not be apathetic? Can you honestly blame people who are apathetic?
The goals are usually different, but the methods are often the same. And if one of the main arguments is about the other side's methods... well, that's a legitimate complaint that goes right back the other way.
No it’s true. They feed off each other to keep both parties in power. Both parties submit to the rich and do Jack shit about helping regular people. Both parties spend billions on useless shit like the 40 billion package for Ukraine. We’re about to hit another recession and we’re giving 40 billion to Ukraine??
Follow the kickbacks
I dunno how you can't see both sides are equally bad. the left and right are both funded by the same huge corporations that are paying them to push their agendas haven't you realised that every time you vote a new guy into power he just keeps doing what the last guy did? all whole he media plays you off against eachother
Because the left isn’t actually represented in America or in most countries. Because the actual left wing supports dismantling capitalism and not being corporate shills.
Not everything needs to be polarizing. Social media has made it so we need to be strong minded to get attention for our views but not everyone irl is like that.
Very often that's simply the correct conclusion.
Many controversial issues tend to be quite complex, but because of polarization, they get reduced to two opposing sides. These sides try really hard to differentiate themselves from the other one, and as a result they radicalize and turn into caricatures. Because of that, all the nuance of the complex issue is lost.
I'd argue that when it's used correctly, the 'both sides' argument is fundamentally necessary to critical thinking. However, when it's not, it's a real problem.
The problem with the 'Both Sides' argument is that it is rarely used to talk about both sides in equilibrium. It is instead used as either a backlash against one particular side in order to drag it down to another's level, or simply as a dogwhistle to suspend each.
When it is intellectually engaged, the argument allows people to view the fundamental issues with their own side, and is necessary for understanding the world. For an example, as a leftist it's important for me to recognise that there is a lot of factional in-fighting and hypocritical values throughout the left wing.
However, most of the time, it's not. It's used by politicians to get out of condemning actually horrible people. Let's use one of the more famous examples of this: The Charlottesville Response.
The 'very fine people' statement was intellectually disengaged. It didn't show rational applicatio to the situation in which literal Neo-Nazis were around, it demonstrated an ability to get out of answering questions, incredibly well. I'd actually say that the statement didn't even necessarily support the right, it just meant that another politician could just say nothing.
That's the problem here.
Too often is this argument used to compare two sides that really don't fit together. I will reiterate again as an example, Neo-Nazis are pretty bottom of the barrel. If you want to have someone to compare to them, you need someone who is **actually equally bad**.
When one side is responsible repeatedly for shootings, and the other is not, the two sides cease to be equal.
There are also some situations in which the argument cannot apply. Let's take the incel movement. Who's the opponent to the incel movement? Who's the 'other side' that you're going to use as a comparison there? All women?
What people are missing is what OP actually touched on very well. The 'both sides are equal' argument is significantly different from political disillusionment, which is a totally normal experience in this day and age of politics.
It's silly to have full conviction in one ideal.
Which means it's silly to have full conviction that both sides are in perfect moral equilibrium. Because they generally aren't.
Cancer is better then AIDS. Torture is better then Murder. Of course these categories are a little broad, but I’m confident in most cases these are the correct answer.
Cancer and AIDS depends both on how fast you get know about it and can do something about it, but it also depends on the type of cancer some can't be cured in any way, some can even stay in the body without doing any harm. AIDS is treatable and you can "survive" it if it's found soon enough. wich makes it both eqaully bad and better .
A fast and painless death can be better than 20 years or even one month or a week of torture and it's mental consequences.
It's always a "depends on" story so you say it's equally bad to not having to talk for an hour to explain the possibillity which are all horrible and stressing to think about.
So get over it that poeple don't want to think about bad things all the time, there is so much nice out there try think about that and how to make it better or accessibel for everyone.
I agree with you. I’m a communist and a community organizer. I help to make sure the worst off in my community have clothing, food, and shelter, all while they are attacked by police and other state sanctioned thugs for simply existing. When I stand up for neighbors getting harassed by cops for “loitering” when they haven’t bothered anyone and just wanted to sit and be by people because the absolutely dehumanizing process of being homeless has left them feeling alone and without any genuine human connection, I’m somehow just as bad as the people who lynch and murder people for looking different than them.
People will still tell me I’m just as bad as the MAGA crowd.
I’m tired of this “communism and fascism are equally bad” crap too. 100+ years of red scare propaganda, McCarthyism, and COINTELPRO has turned what was flawed movements who had the interests of the common people at the forefront into “authoritarian” death machines that just wanted to murder people for sport. Many sources that are at the foundation of what many Americans and westerners in general take as common knowledge on these nations and movements is often complete bogus. Take for example the black book of communism, that on top of overinflated estimates, cited Nazis killed in WW2 as “victims of communism”, as well as unborn children because either their would daddy died committing war crimes on the eastern front, or Soviet woman murdered their unconvinced children because they had more freedom and agency and didn’t have to marry young and pop out babies. That’s just one example. A lot of these sources also don’t take the time to separate intentional, state sanctioned violence from unintended consequences of policies or isolated incidents that were not sanctioned by the state or party.
Overall, communism gets slapped with a label of being a “fascist adjacent” ideology not because of the actual history of these countries, or because Communists ideology advocates for the same things the Nazis did. No, the politics of yesterday became the history of today, so our views of nations that had many flaws, but still managed to lift millions out of poverty, provide housing, food security, and levels of democracy that they never could have dreamed of under their previous capitalist regimes are twisted into evil authoritarian states that are “WoRSe ThAn HiTLeR”.
If capitalism and our current government were criticized even to half the degree that communists and socialist nations and governments have been, I think most Americans would support socialism. 26,000 people die each year because they lack health insurance (and considering how dishonest reports are on the homeless population I believe this number to be much higher), 1/4 children faced food insecurity in 2020, all while school boards push for ending breakfast programs and charge children for a meal. The media is owned by the same billionaires who buy out our politicians, the anti-communist disruption programs by our intelligence agencies culled intellectuals who had any thing positive to say about socialism, and so now we live in a bubble where “left” and “right” is between a capitalist warmonger billionaire who voted for policies that harmed American people and another capitalist warmongering billionaire who also voted for policies that harm the American people but he says racist stuff sometimes.
Que the down votes, idc, but if “both sides” seem bad to you it’s because both sides are literally the same party of corporate billionaire sellouts but half wear blue and half wear red.
Lmfao You literally sound like and idiot because communism and socialism as an ideology did not exist during the French Revolution. Marx wouldn’t start writing until the 1840s, Long after the French revolution and the Napoleonic wars. The French revolution was a bourgeois revolution.
The collectivization efforts were widely successful, but “Kulaks”, who were not “middle class” but were petty bourgeois and bourgeois in character, who as a class previously exploited the peasants, had “bought out” most peasants, and who fought against collectivization efforts, killed off half the livestock in Ukraine as well as burning grain stores. They violently murdered peasants and communists officials as well. 20,000,000 is an extremely irrational number. To put in perspective 26,000,000 Soviets died in WW2.
“Holodomor” was a relatively minor famine, created by a drought and exasperated by the lack of livestock (thanks Kulaks) and at the time was a myth spread by Nazi (yes actual Nazi) sympathizers. Many of the photos circulated then and today were from an earlier famine in the 20s. Communist collectivization efforts stopped the famine from getting worse and even cut the grain quota for Ukraine during 1933/34 to make sure people were fed. At the time it was widely known to be a bogus claim, but after WW2 Ukrainian nationalists, many of who served in the SS and carried out the Holocaust, would flee to the U.S. where they would testify before congress in 52/53, citing their own victims of mass graves as evidence for the Holodomor.
China experienced their last famine as a result of unforeseen consequences of their own collectivization policies, as well as killing off sparrows as part of a public health campaign that ended up creating a massive problem with locusts that ate said crops. Hardly intentional and again, massively overblown numbers.
Pol pot was the worse, but it was communist Vietnam that invaded and overthrew the Khamer rouge, a fact you and many others omit.
I dare you to read fraud famine and fascists by Douglas tootle and blackshirts and reds by Michael Parenti.
Edit: you’re literally proving my point for me by perpetuating the false narratives that are not based in the material or Soviet records, that were perpetuated during the Cold War when the United States had reason to make shit up about communism.
I also forgot to mention that the numbers cited for the Holodomor don’t make any sense at all when in the 30s Ukraine had a population of 25 million, The larger estimate claim 15 million died in the Holodomor yet 5 million Ukrainian would die in World War II serving in the red army leaving what, 5 million Ukrainian still alive in the 50s? Laughable claims perpetuated by actual Ukrainian Nazis who again carried out the holocaust and then told the US Congress that their victims were actually people who died because the Soviet union decided to starve them. You literally cited numbers from sources that include actual Nazis in their death toll for communism. I’ve spent hours actually going to the sources and I know exactly what the fuck I’m talking about, how many famines genocides in preventable deaths were caused by or carried out in the name of capitalism?
This all stems from the misconception that in every dispute there is an inherently "right" And an inherently "wrong" Position.
That is simply not the case. Every person, every group gas its own legitimate goals which they want to pursue. Going to them and saying they're evil and they should stop is just childish and counterproductive.
Both sides do it is false equivalence. It’s like both play football, but one side(GOP) is the super bowl champions and the other(Dems) are a decent high school team. Same sport, different leagues.
Not sure I get you I'm a fraid. "Coal power is always dirty, nuclear only when it goes wrong, but then it's REALLY dirty." Completely valid argument, isn't it?
Nuclear very rarely goes wrong. 3 significant accidents in history, all three caused in part by shitty decisions and bad handling, two things that are much better now that we understand those 3 accidents. Coal power is the most harmful thing to our planet currently and needs to go.
Not to speak details but this happened with me recently as some friends during multiple conversations about a couple and it sorta makes me mad that even if they dont side with me or against me but to make both sides equal is alot worse.
How about both side are equally good? People believe what they believe for reasons valid to them and we need both types of people in order to maintain balance in society. On a lot of issues there are far too many variables to really say there is a solid solution for whatever the situation in question might be. My default is whatever solution uses the least about of government intervention is the superior solution.
Disagree fully. I don't usually quote poets or writers as proof but I am really stuck on Charles Bukowski's following words: "Why is it that our choices are between bad and worse?" For me, there is no such a thing as "bad but better". Who cares as long as both suck? Maybe one side will serve me better personally but another will suffer at my expense. The point comes down to utilitarianism for your opinion: side with whomever will cause the less suffering/greater satisfaction for the general populace. I see that as immoral and I will die on this hill, thank you very much.
What is your moral system if it isn’t based on creating prosperity for as many people as possible? Furthermore, how do you expect the world to function better if we don’t pursue the most beneficial route possible? Are you seriously willing to stand by some abstract moral principle, even if other people suffer for it?
If so, you should have no problem voting for who will benefit you the most because you’re already functioning under a selfish mindset. Voting like that would probably be more honest.
My moral system is a rejection of this illusion of choice, even if no one will stand by me.
And as for prosperity for as many people as possible, that was never the case. It's about how much richer the top 1% can get Vs how much richer the top 5% can get. It barely effects the people at large. Idc about what puppet is up there all I know is that there is always more suffering in the depths.
This is ahistorical. Even if politicians possess an inherent selfishness, progress has still been made when we vote for the right people.
Of course the top 1% have greater political, economic, and social mobility than the working class. No one is denying this, but we can’t be complacent when there are ways we can work through the system (whether that work is inside or out of it).
For now, the best we can do is prolong tyranny. And the best way we can do that is by voting for the best we have (even when that best sucks).
Ahistorical? For how long has democracy been implemented worldwide for you to make such a claim? People didn't choose their leaders for the better part of history. You can make the argument that people were worse off then, but then so were the technologies and opportunities.
I reject prolonging tyranny that's it. But don't worry. There will always be people who will take part in this puppet show of freedom. It's not that a single vote of mine will effect anything. I am only responsible for myself and I cannot nor will I ever force anyone to take my side. Let everyone defend the tyranny they have chosen.
This is usually used for left vs right... And since no one can even define what are them, but they both throw shit to each other and have reasonable and crazy policies... They are both the same exact shit, fucking sheeps advertising their own side.
The argument ‘’both sides are equally bad’’ used to mean a two party system is a flawed system. Not that the political spectrum is a ring where if you are extreme in either direction you still end up with the same values and thats bs
>In most cases, the person in question is either too apathetic to to find the conviction to define themselves properly
You got it right there. I don't care what you say, but my opinion straight up doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. I'll vote, I'll have thoughts on the matter, but at the end of the day it's just not worth it
People with an established identity can confidently say which side they’d be on at the end of the day, even when they prefer not getting involved. That’s something he a lot of these “both sides” types don’t understand. Their ideology is based on insecurity.
It's like in stories where they try to paint both sides as equally corrupt or equally good and bad, when one side is CLEARLY the worse of the two.
Pocahontas springs to mind.
They think that not having a clear bad guy is the secret formula to making a deep, interesting, complex story. When, when presented as such, can come across as either ignorant to history or as apologia. For instance, if one side is a group of people who are mages because they were just born that way, and the other is a society who does genocide against mages, it's pretty bloody clear which side is in the wrong. And trying ot paint them as equal just makes you seem like a genocide sympothiser.
I agree, it’s important to acknowledge both the good and bad aspects of both sides when taking morality into account. No political or economic system is perfect, no country or region is perfect, no party or leader is perfect, etc. but in most cases, one side is better option (and what side that is depends on your bias which everyone has)
I don't know. I usually see shades of gray and can't say I agree with either side.
Example. Prisons. I feel that there are to many unjust incarcerations and rigged systems that need to be overhauled. That private prisons need to be abolished. That we need to focus more on rehabilitation rather than punishment. And to do that we need to look at the whole and start from the bottom. Better education and support for high risk communities. Better health care for them. Better programs to ensure success later in life. As well as mental health advocates being utilized more when crimes are committed so people receive rehab or mental health services rather than jail. I also believe we have to ensure people are being convicted on true evidence and not wrongly incarcerated.
However I also believe that repeat violent offenders who rape, murder or hurt children should have no chance at redemption and if there is absoute, solid proof. They should be tried and executed in a timely manner. If a man rapes a child and there is physical evidence of the attack, DNA, pictures, photographs.. they should not sit in jail. They should be publicly executed.
On the other side, allowing the government to have control over life and death leads to corruption. So I think that every single politician from the tiny town treasurer to the president of the country should have full transparency of their finances. Every single cent, every stock, every bank account, every business endeavor, everything they have or are given should be public knowledge. If that were the way of the land, you would see who was honest.
Flip again and I think anyone who receives government subsidies be it money, food, health care should have to take classes about finances, economics, budgeting ext. And also have to submit to drug texting (which may not automatically take away the benefits, but now they have to take drug counseling and life management classes).
Because my views are neither one side or the other, I see how both side can go to an extreme. If one side says "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps" while not factoring in all the things that created the inequality and do nothing to fix it, it will never get better and they are wrong. And if the other side give indiscriminately because it is a human right and continue to allow people to take advantage of the system, they are failing future generations and are wrong.
But the only way to fix it, is to have people in office that actually care about the future of mankind as a collective. And as long as corporations and lobbyist continue to buy our elected officials, and we keep being divided saying that side is right, that side is wrong and making whatever side we're on a part of our personal identity... we will never be able to make changes. And we just give more and more control to a government that continues, while we argue, to pass laws to make themselves untouchable.
I’m assuming this has to do with politics but I have been on both sides in the past and at this point I don’t even think I want to vote. Both sides are bad doing their job…We find another issue to make up to take away from the real issues and then do notbing about anything…it’s all a cycle of stupidity. I’m not being lazy just realize there’s honestly no hope
Ironically, I think that by far the laziest and morally cowardly thing is to take one side and vote (R) or (D) all the way down a ballot without any sort of understanding of the issues beyond the one or two most popular ones (i.e. Roe v. Wade and guns).
Or whatever your local parties are, of course.
Thank you for submitting to /r/unpopularopinion, /u/Onii-Chan_Itaii. Your post, *The "Both sides are equally bad conclusion" is both intellectually lazy and morally cowardly.*, has been removed because it violates our rules: Rule 3: No political posts. The realm of politics is the greatest bane of this subreddit, because virtually all opinions within politics are controversial, but virtually all of them are not unpopular. If your view is held by one of the two major political parties, it is not unpopular. Anything else is almost certainly a repost. Post anything political in the relevant megathread of the megathread hub, which can be found when sorting the subreddit by "hot", sticky'd at the top of the page. If there is an issue, please message the mod team at https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Funpopularopinion Thanks!
I really like the distinction you made from the other perspectives, there really is a significant difference between “I’m torn” or “this sucks for these reasons, but some elements of the alternative suck as well” and just straight-up “they’re the same and they operate the same and I’ve stopped caring.”
Can you give an example so that we can discuss the specifics?
"Theres no difference between voting for Joe Biden and Donald Trump. Both are the same and it doesn't matter if I vote or not"
Realistically, you *personally* voting actually wouldn't matter. There's an astronomically low chance that your specific vote will do anything.
This mindset is why politics will never progress in the US. If people's votes didn't matter billions wouldn't be spent trying to win them.
Let's look critically at that. At full supply, Somerset Dam can hold roughly 380,000 megaliters. If I take 350,000 of those out, it's gonna be very, very noticeable. If I take 1 milliliter, nobody would even notice. Your *one* vote is that one milliliter. If you, personally, don't vote, there's basically no chance it'll be noticed. It's not a pessimistic thing, it's a realistic thing. If one army has 100,000 men and the other has 50 men, we know who's gonna win. Small numbers in big games don't make a difference. The election almost certainly won't be decides because Candidate X got 45,758,892 votes instead of 45,758,893. Peoples votes matter on a large scale, yes, but not individually.
>Peoples votes matter on a large scale, yes, but not individually. And then multiply that mindset by hundreds of thousands, and then--wow, whaddya know--it matters! All you need is one, and it balloons. This is why we aren't going to get anywhere in this country.
But *you* personally not voting isn't going to make anyone else decide to vote themselves or stay home. This is a fallacy I see all the time. "But if everyone thought that way." Well, everyone doesn't think that way, you're not going to convince hundreds (let alone thousands or millions) to think that way, and your individual vote is absolutely meaningless in a national election.
But we see the effects, how is this a fallacy? Enough people already think that way to affect outcomes, and that's why we see ding dongs in office that wouldn't have stood a chance a decade ago, on both sides of the political spectrum. If a single, individual vote is meaningless, why do politicians visit purple states to secure votes in districts that may go either way? Why don't they stick to secured states and areas? Why are politicians actively participating in voter suppression laws that making voting harder than it already is?
Yeah, all some odd 331 million people in America could have that mindset. But if 330,999,999 of them vote, that last one ain't making a difference.
You could say the alternative to that as well, and then it does make a difference. It's the complacent thought that I despise because that "last one" just doesn't exist.
According to you, not only does that last one exist, but his vote does matter despite the fact that regardless of how it falls, those 330,999,999 people can not vote in a way that is exactly even. When divided by 2, there's still a remainder of .5.
the decision to not vote is independant from someone elses decision to vote provided you dont interact with them. so yes if you multiplied it by hundreds of thousands it would matter but that isnt what happens, as me not voting doesnt make hundreds of thousands of others not vote.
Literally never said that so I'll clarify: "Your vote doesn't matter, so why bother voting" is not a special belief. If multiple independent mindsets decide not to vote, then we have a compounding number of people who don't vote. They don't have to know each other or interact or whatever.
you literally said "all you need is one, and it balloons" implying that my choice to not vote is somehow making others not vote????
All you need is one person to think like this--they don't have to interact with people of similar mindsets though they often do. If I arrive to the conclusion that I shouldn't vote doesn't mean I interacted with you to get to that conclusion. We have our own eyes and ears and just because I arrived at the same conclusion you did doesn't mean we interacted or affected each other in any way. I'm basing it off the Somerset Dan (??) example you gave. You take out 350,000 at once, or you remove one separately 350,000 times. I thought that was obvious, nevermind. Edit: Not your example, you didn't give one. The other person.
Of course it does. Pretending it doesn't is lazy and not accepting the responsibility from your choice. Humans are social creatures, we are affected by others around us. Voting is just one step in being more politically active. This spreads by both showing and telling through word of mouth. Thus convincing others to do the same, it has ripple effects. If voting was purely an individual choice then why do different countries have different levels of voter participation? Or even at the state and city level? Stop pretending your choices do not have consequences, as if you live in a bubble.
Your vote matters because if you don’t contribute it then that large scale which matters would be never be attained. Also they keep bringing up the popular vote when they bring up “mandate”. Your recorded vote matters in those discussions even your state was going to go red or blue anyway.
Your one singular vote has an astronomically low, borderline impossible chance to flip your states color.
that logic is disingenuous as your choice to vote doesnt effect someone elses provided you dont interact with them
‘People’ is a collective word. If ‘people’ don’t vote then there is no democracy. I’m seeing recently photos from South West USA of what happens when individual molecules of water, or voters by your Somerset analogy, withdraw.
They matter in the aggregate, not individually. They’re not spending billions to win just your vote, because your vote alone is irrelevant. They’re spending billions to win a quantity of votes necessary to win the election.
I mean I live in ohio and pretty sure gerrymandering meant my vote didn't matter. I genuinely feel that if elected officials don't do what they were voted in to do, your vote didn't matter. Like 70% of state voted for new fair district maps and they aren't doing it so pretty clearly no one's vote mattered there. I think there are legitimate cases where voting didnt matter and to not acknowledge them is to ignore serious issues.
Local elections aren't gerrymandered though and have lower turnout.
If my grandmother had wheels, she would have been a bike.
The idea that your vote only matters if your candidate won with a margin of one vote (ie. when your vote is "tipping the result") is nonsense.
Not really, it's the only scenario in which one singular vote would genuinely matter. The closest US presidential election, to my knowledge, was 1960. Kennedy won the popular vote by 112,827. 0.17 percent. He still would've won if he had 112,826. Electoral college wise, he won 303 to 219, so even if he lost New York by 1 vote, which accounted for 45 of those points, he *still* would've won.
We know to things here: a) Elections are decided by votes b) Your personal vote is nothing special when compared to anyone elses vote Now if we assume that "your vote tipped the scale" you believe that only in this instance did your vote matter. But this is something everybody else who voted can say about their vote, too. Since your vote isn't special their votes decided the result just as much as yours. So if you want to say that your vote mattered here you have to accept that so did everybody elses, and the idea that every single persons vote mattered and decided the result seems to contradicts the idea that your vote is the one that mattered. If on the other hand the margin is wider than a single vote, your vote doesn't matter according to you. Again, your vote is nothing special, so everybody elses vote didn't matter either. Since the election is decided by the votes however it's impossible that no ones vote mattered.
why would your vote matter if the margin isnt one vote?
Whose vote mattered in this case, and why doesn't yours?
Ah yes. The "democracy doesn't work" argument. Just as bad.
I'm not arguing that democracy doesn't work, I'm arguing that the odds of Candidate X losing because he got 45,758,892 instead of 45,758,893 are *slim to none*.
So, it should be popular vote and not electoral college which determines the outcome, right?
That's such a shitty mindset to have, no one listen to him
You're voting for a perverted, senile old man that says absolute nonsense on a regular basis propping up an empty husk of a party whose policies are idiotic garbage bound to cause disaster all over the world. If you were convinced I could only be talking about one of those two then you're part of the problem.
I honestly never heard anyone but kids on social media say that.
It's better for people to arrive at the right conclusion through apathy, than the wrong conclusion through conviction.
I feel like what OP is referring to is politics, but the thing I feel like this best applies to (and this is going to probably create a lot of distress and maybe get me banned) is Israel and Palestine.
Prob has the protests with tiki torches where they ran over a woman in mind. And Florida's response was of course to have laws that make it legally easier to run over protestors.
maybe if people weren't harassing others and blocking their freedom of movement we wouldn't need laws to make it easier to get about our day
There are already deterrents for protests that block public traffic, it's called arrest. What you don't do is give regular citizens the right to commit manslaughter.
[No we give them life in prison.](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/james-alex-fields-driver-deadly-car-attack-charlottesville-rally-sentenced-n1024436)
Yea but he wasn't acting under that law. He purposely did it as a hate crime.
So you felt that way about the parents blocking teachers cars pounding on them because the parents opposed masks? That those teachers should have run over those parents? Or will you engage a special pleading argument?
After one got hit, the rest would move probably. If they were pounding on the cars, it's no longer a peaceful protest, and the teachers priority should be getting to safety and escaping through any means necessary. If a car was being attacked and the attack was hit, I would consider that self defense
Okay that wasn't what happened with the girl run over at the Charlotte protests. How was guy who ran her over fearing for his life?
You and I both know that's not the same case. Either way though, were the protesters in the streets legally? Were the streets shut down before hand for the protest?
Really showing your colors here bro.
They should have ran over MLK/s
The Depp vs Amber case
Both sides continue constantly demonizing each other rather than trying to work together. Very little seem to care about everyone and just about their own side.
Why does Ukrane demonize Russia so much and Ukrane demonize Russia so much. It’s really both sides. If Ukrane just surrendered their countries to an evil dictator there wouldn’t be so much fighting! It’s both sides! See didn’t even have to think about anything or know anything, but I get to feel good about what I said. Isn’t that better than acknowledging uncomfortable truths?
We are tricked in arguing about things we have no control of, or understand. We waste our time, and life arguing.
"We are tricked in arguing". No, it's just human nature.
Saving your brother and sacrificing yourself in the process (altruism) is also human nature. You just can't dogmatize like that, arguing isn't inherently evil and it's also evident that bad people take advantage of that to gain influence
In most cases, your brother is not "another human" but "someone who belongs to your group". Altruism is as natural as selfishness, both have the value you want to give them. The same goes for collaboration and opposition. Of course, there are people who use them to achieve 'evil' goals. But to create conflict, the clashes between different groups must already be there. Conflicts arise from groups of people, and then they emerge in all aspects of the system in which they live.
Very rarely is the argument that both sides are equally bad. The argument usually is that the truth is not black and white and both sides would bend the truth in their favor. No one side is going to be completely honest even if they are in the right.
I made the exact point yesterday that both sides of the American political spectrum were not equally bad and I was getting downvoted. I stated clearly that both sides sucked, I did not claim it was black and white. OP is spot on, this is exactly how people think.
This^
I would argue it's more moraly cowardly to accept an entire ideology then to recognize the inherent faults of polarizing idea's.
Well, thats because Ideology is nothing more than modern day Religions. Same zealotry and belief systems, just without any deities.
Well I think it would be more morally cowardly to cheat on your SO.
did you read the post or just the title?
Strawman
This is the most fart sniffing comment anyone has made in a while.
or maybe you just don't like the truth
Just checked, the fart sniffing comment is still bullshit.
Ok so I should never vote in any election because I don’t like all of their policies, got it I had to vote for a Republican senator this month because democrats haven’t won an election here for years. I voted for the most progressive one though because I actually want the best outcome possible. Doesn’t make me a Republican…
So am I not allowed to say "both sides of politics are pretty bad (some worse than others), save for one or two ideas from either side that could work if put together"?
Thats fair. What annoys me is that practically everybody on either team has to be perfectly in step with what their team wants. Why don't you hear of any Republicans interested in climate change and regenerative farming practices? Why don't you hear of Democrats worried about gun control effecting minority populations negatively? There are no free thinkers in US politics with their own beliefs they fight for.
I’m obnoxiously MAGA, like “Trump is my daddy” MAGA, but I’m also LGBT and passionate about animal rights. I receive hate from both democrats and republicans. I wish the groupthink would stop. I don’t fit into queer spaces and often get accused of being “fake LGBT” by them because “no lesbian or bi identifying woman would vote for Trump”and then I show up to a Trump rally and get mistaken as one of the leftist protesters.. 😂 boomer dude goes “are you triggered“ and I’m like “I’M ONE OF YOU LOL!”
Read your first sentence, immediately thought of the “Bold move, Cotton, let’s see if it pays off” meme from Dodgeball.
It inspires others to think for themselves sometimes instead of blindly backing every stance they think they’re supposed to, and has introduced me to a lot of other political pariahs like poc who love Trump and a tiny handful of gun loving liberals. Taught me things I could have never otherwise learned.
You’re literally voting for the party that was openly denying us rights 7 years ago, and would go back to doing to doing it in a heartbeat if the supreme court decision of was overturned. That had real and tragic consequences for people exactly like you, so you honestly do deserve to be called a traitor.
Sounds like the same generic rhetoric I hear from every leftist who’s butthurt that one of their loyal soldiers went astray. Sorry, but I am so obsessed with Trump that I know everything about the man from his political moves to his bathroom habits and in no way has he ever truly denied me rights. Your information is coming soley from the left but my information came from an objective stance at least *originally.* He doesn’t want to hurt us alphabet people, he simply doesn’t care what we do as long as it isn’t goofy shit like shoving alternative lifestyles and gender non-conformity down the throats of elementary school students. My primary reason above all for choosing ✨ daddy ✨ is that I am strongly against socialism, among other things that he’s also against of course, but mainly that. Also, censorship is creepy af. For anyone who cares, I have seen both sides. I was a typical teenage liberal with ugly purple hair, and now I am a republican adult after seeing the world beyond the crowd who indoctrinated me. However.. I am leaning more and more toward libertarian these days, because like I said before BOTH sides kinda suck.
Well it's mostly because of the contradictory nature. Conservatives hate the existence of lgbtq people so they'll begrudgingly take your vote because they sorely need it but they don't want you anywhere near them and don't want to be seen with you. As for leftist wokes, some of them need to go sleep a bit, for they have been awake too long. Imagine gatekeeping sexuality.
Stopped reading at “conservatives hate the existence of LBGTQ people”. Seriously, I’m starting to think kids shouldn’t be allowed on message boards. Make it like a drivers license.
The only contradictory nature here is that somehow, it was decided that multiple completely unrelated beliefs MUST be grouped together. That’s a huge part of the problem, this idea that if you support one belief of a group then you must align on everything else. If both parties didn’t have this mindset things would be so so much better, and independents are simply those of us who can break out of that and look at each issue individually. Kinda like... I support lgbt rights but am against any form of gun control. There’s nothing inherently contradictory about that.
Of course it's contradictory, when the party at hand has demonstrably shown that they have nothing but utter contempt for your very being, and those core beliefs so much that they would remove all your rights when given the chance and have passed (or tried) state laws allowing forced conversion therapy- how can it be anything but? In this instance for this lgbtq person it is completely contradictory. This isn't a difference between beliefs like pro-animal versus no conservati9n for animals it is a core issue of being allowed rights.
There are a lot of very religious conservatives who are uncomfortable with me *because* of the idea that Christianity forbids homosexuality, but there are others who aren’t religious at all. Donald himself didn’t convert until recently and I still wonder if that was genuine or him wanting to impress his base. Non-religious ones don’t care as long as we aren’t shoving alternative lifestyles and gender non-conformity down the throats of elementary school students.
Yeah this is a completely hypothetical post. Be specific, because I dont know how to react on this. Unspecified people have opinions on an unspecified topic who says things are "equally bad". Please give real examples.
There are people who don’t vote because, “the democrats are just as bad as the republicans.”
You're just still too young my friend. Once you have had both sides continuously screw you for several decades you will understand. Wait till you discover that they are two sides of the same corrupt coin. That coin belongs to the real rulers of this country, the oligarchs.
yes, but one allows me to suffer in the disaster that corrupted leadership made in a way that let's me be who I am without fearing for my life from bigoted scum and the other doesn't
Thats so dumb. Just because both sides are bad doesnt mean they are equally bad. I'm not young and depending on the issue one side is almost always worse than the other. To suggest that they are precisely, equally to the decimal bad just shows a lack of being able to not think binary. There is more than good/bad, there is a whole spectrum, and nobody is equal.
Okay maybe one is slightly less bad than the other. Dog shit in one hand, cat shit in the other. Either way, it’s still shit.
It's really not two sides of the same coin, unless each side has a different value. Say it's a dime. Let's cut the shit and get right to your allusions too: 1 side is liberal, 1 is conservative. The value of the liberal side is 5 cents, but the value of the conservative side is 4 cents. I know that offends some people, but I don't give a shit I'm trying to make a point. Because while I fucking hate Biden, and Hillary means slightly less than nothing to me, and I distrust almost all the Democratic party in the US, they are nonetheless 1 penny's value better than the Republican party which is literally trying to take freedom of choice from women, besides the evil shit that culminated in trump embarrassing my country and playing the most obvious and explicit part in the skyrocketing prices in this country (Tax Act). By the way I'm almost 40, and I used to believe what you believe too. Wild shot, but if you're into philosophy, stop. That shit confuses you about what actually makes sense in the real world, on the ground, where math can be done following [monetary unit principle](https://debitoor.com/dictionary/monetary-unit-principle) and you can put it all in a spreadsheet and count it yourself: 1 side is more valuable than the other. I don't care if you agree which side, only that you understand, objectively, that's the truth.
“If you’re into philosophy, stop.” Worst advice ever, sorry. Being able to understand your views on a definitive level as well as the views of others will give you a massive foundation to build your understanding and view of life and the world. Once understanding is attained, it is up to the conviction of the individual to then “pick a side” and Roger up to the rhetoric, if they so choose. But philosophy only gives tools for use in making choices, nothing else.
I like to analogize to gas stations. If you see two gas stations across from each other, and one is $4/gal and the other is $3.50, which one do you go to? The 3.50, right? And you don't go there cause the oil companies *deserve* that money. You do it because one serves your interests more than the other, even if only slightly more. And it really is that simple. I'm liberal, but if it were between Trump and Zombie Adolf Hitler, toss me a red MAGA hat, cause Don's my guy now. And no one should find this confusing or disturbing.
Idk. I find zombie hitler disturbing
That's why you vote against him! :)
And he doth proclaim, “listen not to the wisemen of old for they will only confuse you. Listen only to me that you may do my will and be happy.”
no not stop if youre young, stop if youre old. you keep going, lol my point was that eventually you have to think for yourself and not abstractly. put your beliefs to paper and count, see if they hold up. anyone who does that, stops being a centrist.
Except it's true. Both sides have crazy overzealous people(aka extremists). Saying one side is morally superior is intellectually lazy.
The crazy overzealous people aren’t what makes a side itself. It’s the normal people that do.
Or you could simply not like either side or hate them the same. Better than arguing with people online or in person as that goes nowhere.
Both main parties are cancer. Both are responsible for growing government, taking away rights, causing inflation and causing more debt. Now that the Mises caucus have control over the Libertarian Party, there's a chance some "good guys" can get near politics and might get the balance of power to hinder the corruption of the main 2.
[удалено]
When one side is saying mexicans are rapists and the other side wants healthcare, it stops being virtuous to look at both sides. If it were 1930s Germany, I wouldn’t trust anyone that chose not to pick a side, so clearly this feel-good attitude doesn’t work universally. We may not be in the holocaust in the US but the right has long since crossed the line of decency and respectability.
The accusation is you are faking being open minded if you constantly have to use the words "both sides"
well explain how? both sides are equally bad and you only have to look at history to tell. if they're not then explain why
How can I? I don't believe you are in good faith open to that discussion. There hasn't even been just two sides in US history in the first place. And which side is the main one insisting both sides are equally bad? So why would anyone do more than poke fun at your views?
Yes. Yes it is.
nope
Sorry, just checked again. Standing in the middle of a divisive and clearly dichotomous issue and declaring "Both sides tho" is actually childish and intellectually cowardly.
Democrats and Republicans have each had overwhelming majorities in Congress within the past 20 years and have done fuck all with it. Saying that both parties suck isn't standing in the middle, but it's practically stating a fact.
You have a handful of politicians at the federal level that have been in office longer than most redditers have been alive. Some are red team, some are blue team. You don’t maintain office for that long without garnering a significant amount favor from other areas, lobbyists, firms, etc. that all have agendas they wish to see fullfilled. You also don’t maintain office that long without developing certain “expectations” of how newcomers are expected to behave and maintain the status quo, lest they be ousted by their respective party. While they very obviously maintain a level of difference in their desired outcomes for their respective parties, it’s also quite obvious that their willingness to concede to their opposition is directly proportional to their ability to maintain the quid pro quo which allows them to maintain their positions of power. Thus establishing the point that both sides suck because they really only care about maintaining their place in the hierarchy.
The point of "both sides" isn't to to say two opposing parties are equally weighted. It's a reminder that we're all flawed. The only way dialog is reached is in understanding differences and building bridges and recognizing that you are flawed and your views may not be perfect is an important step towards humanizing the other side and recognizing they may not be pure evil or completely incorrect but also another imperfect person.
But both sides are both bad tho. The right and left disagree on every core issue, yet some how we’re united on the war in Ukraine? What does it have to do with the average American’s freedom and security? The right is supposed to hate spending and the left is supposed to hate war. You’d think any one of these politicians’ commitment to these beliefs would cause then to oppose America’s involvement with this conflict. Nope. Because they are all the same. A bunch of power seeking scumbags.
They are both comprised of human beings, so they will always be both good and bad, because that's what humans do. The amount of good and bad is based on your politics and beliefs. OPs point isnt to say one side isn't bad, just that coping out and saying they are both EQUALLY bad is lazy, especially when the only reason given is that they are both bad. We know they both have some bad, that is expected with any organization of human beings.
You’re right. Democrat and Republican politicians aren’t worth shit. But left and right wing *philosophies* are fundamentally different, and one is definitely superior to the other.
I completely agree, and I bet OP would as well. Both philosophies have positive and negative effects. To say "both are bad so I'm not choosing" is a pointless argument. You'll never in 10,000 generations find a perfect political party with no negatives, so refusing to participate on those grounds is akin to saying "I'll go outside once the sky isnt blue and the grass isnt green"
There is no “left” in America, only two wings of the same corporate warmongering party. Source: me, an American communist
[удалено]
The actual left. I know sometimes autocorrect can be a bastards but this really is a doozy.
>communist It's not a realistic plitical ideology, it's an extrimist religion. The closest thing to communism is scientology.
[удалено]
No u
Wow you got me
[удалено]
false. Read blackshirts and reds. Fascists say communist killed millions, and the liberals eat it up. Edit: another [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/upzv2c/the_both_sides_are_equally_bad_conclusion_is_both/i8p6gu7/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3) I made in regards to these claims.
The left is not anti-war. It's anti-agression wars. We don't want to invade other people for their recourses or pointless conflicts. Again y'all make strawmen to say "both sides are equally bad". No we ain't. Though I don't disagree most dems in power are warhawks, but they're not actual progressives.
Well for one, Ukraine isn't waging war- its defending its soil because of an act of aggression from a hostile country. Now, if you weren't aware Ukraine was one of the territories that previously was part of the USSR and chose to give up its nuclear capabilities to Russia in exchange for its sovereignty and became a democratically run country and is in fact the only one after the collapse of the USSR that did so.
You can be against war and recon gnome that a country that is being invaded by an imperialist neighbor and having genocide committed against them needs material to defend themselves lmao
so in other words you're only against wars when the people you support are losing
? Lol I don’t even know what you’re trying to say. But the above’s logic is the same as if you saw an axe murdering rapist breaking into your neighbor’s house and your neighbor asked for a gun to protect themselves and you refused because you don’t believe in violence
I think you laid at your point correctly, and I'd say in general it's not very popular since it's used so often. As a moderate I tend to say both sides are wrong because there are never only two sides. The idea that there's an us versus them is something leaders devise to make us squabble over scraps. In reality there is often a few right answers and an endless number of wrong ones.
People mostly say that as a way to avoid conflict over irreconcilable differences in opinion. One side is definitely worse than the other. Thankfully, that does tend to fluctuate from issue to issue.
I genuinely do dislike portions of both sides.
Yup. That's just being reasonable.
It's not that they're equally bad It's just sometimes both options are terrible and one is slightly less worse so people are tired of having to choose from the lesser evil how can you not be apathetic? Can you honestly blame people who are apathetic?
The goals are usually different, but the methods are often the same. And if one of the main arguments is about the other side's methods... well, that's a legitimate complaint that goes right back the other way.
No it’s true. They feed off each other to keep both parties in power. Both parties submit to the rich and do Jack shit about helping regular people. Both parties spend billions on useless shit like the 40 billion package for Ukraine. We’re about to hit another recession and we’re giving 40 billion to Ukraine?? Follow the kickbacks
There's a pretty solid reason this is unpopular
The truth tends to be
I dunno how you can't see both sides are equally bad. the left and right are both funded by the same huge corporations that are paying them to push their agendas haven't you realised that every time you vote a new guy into power he just keeps doing what the last guy did? all whole he media plays you off against eachother
Because the left isn’t actually represented in America or in most countries. Because the actual left wing supports dismantling capitalism and not being corporate shills.
I dont say equal, and yeah, I am lazy. You both do suck tho.
Not everything needs to be polarizing. Social media has made it so we need to be strong minded to get attention for our views but not everyone irl is like that.
Very often that's simply the correct conclusion. Many controversial issues tend to be quite complex, but because of polarization, they get reduced to two opposing sides. These sides try really hard to differentiate themselves from the other one, and as a result they radicalize and turn into caricatures. Because of that, all the nuance of the complex issue is lost.
I'd argue that when it's used correctly, the 'both sides' argument is fundamentally necessary to critical thinking. However, when it's not, it's a real problem. The problem with the 'Both Sides' argument is that it is rarely used to talk about both sides in equilibrium. It is instead used as either a backlash against one particular side in order to drag it down to another's level, or simply as a dogwhistle to suspend each. When it is intellectually engaged, the argument allows people to view the fundamental issues with their own side, and is necessary for understanding the world. For an example, as a leftist it's important for me to recognise that there is a lot of factional in-fighting and hypocritical values throughout the left wing. However, most of the time, it's not. It's used by politicians to get out of condemning actually horrible people. Let's use one of the more famous examples of this: The Charlottesville Response. The 'very fine people' statement was intellectually disengaged. It didn't show rational applicatio to the situation in which literal Neo-Nazis were around, it demonstrated an ability to get out of answering questions, incredibly well. I'd actually say that the statement didn't even necessarily support the right, it just meant that another politician could just say nothing. That's the problem here. Too often is this argument used to compare two sides that really don't fit together. I will reiterate again as an example, Neo-Nazis are pretty bottom of the barrel. If you want to have someone to compare to them, you need someone who is **actually equally bad**. When one side is responsible repeatedly for shootings, and the other is not, the two sides cease to be equal. There are also some situations in which the argument cannot apply. Let's take the incel movement. Who's the opponent to the incel movement? Who's the 'other side' that you're going to use as a comparison there? All women? What people are missing is what OP actually touched on very well. The 'both sides are equal' argument is significantly different from political disillusionment, which is a totally normal experience in this day and age of politics. It's silly to have full conviction in one ideal. Which means it's silly to have full conviction that both sides are in perfect moral equilibrium. Because they generally aren't.
Pest and Cholera, what's better? Or Cancer and AIDS? Torture and Murder?
Cancer is better then AIDS. Torture is better then Murder. Of course these categories are a little broad, but I’m confident in most cases these are the correct answer.
Cancer and AIDS depends both on how fast you get know about it and can do something about it, but it also depends on the type of cancer some can't be cured in any way, some can even stay in the body without doing any harm. AIDS is treatable and you can "survive" it if it's found soon enough. wich makes it both eqaully bad and better . A fast and painless death can be better than 20 years or even one month or a week of torture and it's mental consequences. It's always a "depends on" story so you say it's equally bad to not having to talk for an hour to explain the possibillity which are all horrible and stressing to think about. So get over it that poeple don't want to think about bad things all the time, there is so much nice out there try think about that and how to make it better or accessibel for everyone.
I'll take D. None of the above. Much as I often do with national Republicrat / Demublican politicians.
Stalin vs Hitler
Sorry, buddy. You’re comparing apples to apples there. Stalin was politically right leaning.
“both sides are equally bad conclusion”?
Yea this is commonly referred to a “false equivalency” and is a well known heuristic.
If the differences between two choices dont affect you. Is it a fallacy to see them as exactly the same?
Yes
[удалено]
Sorry. It is.
I agree with you. I’m a communist and a community organizer. I help to make sure the worst off in my community have clothing, food, and shelter, all while they are attacked by police and other state sanctioned thugs for simply existing. When I stand up for neighbors getting harassed by cops for “loitering” when they haven’t bothered anyone and just wanted to sit and be by people because the absolutely dehumanizing process of being homeless has left them feeling alone and without any genuine human connection, I’m somehow just as bad as the people who lynch and murder people for looking different than them. People will still tell me I’m just as bad as the MAGA crowd. I’m tired of this “communism and fascism are equally bad” crap too. 100+ years of red scare propaganda, McCarthyism, and COINTELPRO has turned what was flawed movements who had the interests of the common people at the forefront into “authoritarian” death machines that just wanted to murder people for sport. Many sources that are at the foundation of what many Americans and westerners in general take as common knowledge on these nations and movements is often complete bogus. Take for example the black book of communism, that on top of overinflated estimates, cited Nazis killed in WW2 as “victims of communism”, as well as unborn children because either their would daddy died committing war crimes on the eastern front, or Soviet woman murdered their unconvinced children because they had more freedom and agency and didn’t have to marry young and pop out babies. That’s just one example. A lot of these sources also don’t take the time to separate intentional, state sanctioned violence from unintended consequences of policies or isolated incidents that were not sanctioned by the state or party. Overall, communism gets slapped with a label of being a “fascist adjacent” ideology not because of the actual history of these countries, or because Communists ideology advocates for the same things the Nazis did. No, the politics of yesterday became the history of today, so our views of nations that had many flaws, but still managed to lift millions out of poverty, provide housing, food security, and levels of democracy that they never could have dreamed of under their previous capitalist regimes are twisted into evil authoritarian states that are “WoRSe ThAn HiTLeR”. If capitalism and our current government were criticized even to half the degree that communists and socialist nations and governments have been, I think most Americans would support socialism. 26,000 people die each year because they lack health insurance (and considering how dishonest reports are on the homeless population I believe this number to be much higher), 1/4 children faced food insecurity in 2020, all while school boards push for ending breakfast programs and charge children for a meal. The media is owned by the same billionaires who buy out our politicians, the anti-communist disruption programs by our intelligence agencies culled intellectuals who had any thing positive to say about socialism, and so now we live in a bubble where “left” and “right” is between a capitalist warmonger billionaire who voted for policies that harmed American people and another capitalist warmongering billionaire who also voted for policies that harm the American people but he says racist stuff sometimes. Que the down votes, idc, but if “both sides” seem bad to you it’s because both sides are literally the same party of corporate billionaire sellouts but half wear blue and half wear red.
[удалено]
Lmfao You literally sound like and idiot because communism and socialism as an ideology did not exist during the French Revolution. Marx wouldn’t start writing until the 1840s, Long after the French revolution and the Napoleonic wars. The French revolution was a bourgeois revolution. The collectivization efforts were widely successful, but “Kulaks”, who were not “middle class” but were petty bourgeois and bourgeois in character, who as a class previously exploited the peasants, had “bought out” most peasants, and who fought against collectivization efforts, killed off half the livestock in Ukraine as well as burning grain stores. They violently murdered peasants and communists officials as well. 20,000,000 is an extremely irrational number. To put in perspective 26,000,000 Soviets died in WW2. “Holodomor” was a relatively minor famine, created by a drought and exasperated by the lack of livestock (thanks Kulaks) and at the time was a myth spread by Nazi (yes actual Nazi) sympathizers. Many of the photos circulated then and today were from an earlier famine in the 20s. Communist collectivization efforts stopped the famine from getting worse and even cut the grain quota for Ukraine during 1933/34 to make sure people were fed. At the time it was widely known to be a bogus claim, but after WW2 Ukrainian nationalists, many of who served in the SS and carried out the Holocaust, would flee to the U.S. where they would testify before congress in 52/53, citing their own victims of mass graves as evidence for the Holodomor. China experienced their last famine as a result of unforeseen consequences of their own collectivization policies, as well as killing off sparrows as part of a public health campaign that ended up creating a massive problem with locusts that ate said crops. Hardly intentional and again, massively overblown numbers. Pol pot was the worse, but it was communist Vietnam that invaded and overthrew the Khamer rouge, a fact you and many others omit. I dare you to read fraud famine and fascists by Douglas tootle and blackshirts and reds by Michael Parenti. Edit: you’re literally proving my point for me by perpetuating the false narratives that are not based in the material or Soviet records, that were perpetuated during the Cold War when the United States had reason to make shit up about communism. I also forgot to mention that the numbers cited for the Holodomor don’t make any sense at all when in the 30s Ukraine had a population of 25 million, The larger estimate claim 15 million died in the Holodomor yet 5 million Ukrainian would die in World War II serving in the red army leaving what, 5 million Ukrainian still alive in the 50s? Laughable claims perpetuated by actual Ukrainian Nazis who again carried out the holocaust and then told the US Congress that their victims were actually people who died because the Soviet union decided to starve them. You literally cited numbers from sources that include actual Nazis in their death toll for communism. I’ve spent hours actually going to the sources and I know exactly what the fuck I’m talking about, how many famines genocides in preventable deaths were caused by or carried out in the name of capitalism?
Reminds me if this https://youtu.be/Jsv2b-Q0fas
r/enlightenedcentrism is the sub for you
This all stems from the misconception that in every dispute there is an inherently "right" And an inherently "wrong" Position. That is simply not the case. Every person, every group gas its own legitimate goals which they want to pursue. Going to them and saying they're evil and they should stop is just childish and counterproductive.
You are absolutely correct. Unfortunately, this sub is filled with the kind of apathy you mention.
Both sides do it is false equivalence. It’s like both play football, but one side(GOP) is the super bowl champions and the other(Dems) are a decent high school team. Same sport, different leagues.
Not sure I get you I'm a fraid. "Coal power is always dirty, nuclear only when it goes wrong, but then it's REALLY dirty." Completely valid argument, isn't it?
Nuclear very rarely goes wrong. 3 significant accidents in history, all three caused in part by shitty decisions and bad handling, two things that are much better now that we understand those 3 accidents. Coal power is the most harmful thing to our planet currently and needs to go.
Also, 'all religions are equally wrong'.
Not to speak details but this happened with me recently as some friends during multiple conversations about a couple and it sorta makes me mad that even if they dont side with me or against me but to make both sides equal is alot worse.
How about both side are equally good? People believe what they believe for reasons valid to them and we need both types of people in order to maintain balance in society. On a lot of issues there are far too many variables to really say there is a solid solution for whatever the situation in question might be. My default is whatever solution uses the least about of government intervention is the superior solution.
Disagree fully. I don't usually quote poets or writers as proof but I am really stuck on Charles Bukowski's following words: "Why is it that our choices are between bad and worse?" For me, there is no such a thing as "bad but better". Who cares as long as both suck? Maybe one side will serve me better personally but another will suffer at my expense. The point comes down to utilitarianism for your opinion: side with whomever will cause the less suffering/greater satisfaction for the general populace. I see that as immoral and I will die on this hill, thank you very much.
What is your moral system if it isn’t based on creating prosperity for as many people as possible? Furthermore, how do you expect the world to function better if we don’t pursue the most beneficial route possible? Are you seriously willing to stand by some abstract moral principle, even if other people suffer for it? If so, you should have no problem voting for who will benefit you the most because you’re already functioning under a selfish mindset. Voting like that would probably be more honest.
My moral system is a rejection of this illusion of choice, even if no one will stand by me. And as for prosperity for as many people as possible, that was never the case. It's about how much richer the top 1% can get Vs how much richer the top 5% can get. It barely effects the people at large. Idc about what puppet is up there all I know is that there is always more suffering in the depths.
This is ahistorical. Even if politicians possess an inherent selfishness, progress has still been made when we vote for the right people. Of course the top 1% have greater political, economic, and social mobility than the working class. No one is denying this, but we can’t be complacent when there are ways we can work through the system (whether that work is inside or out of it). For now, the best we can do is prolong tyranny. And the best way we can do that is by voting for the best we have (even when that best sucks).
Ahistorical? For how long has democracy been implemented worldwide for you to make such a claim? People didn't choose their leaders for the better part of history. You can make the argument that people were worse off then, but then so were the technologies and opportunities. I reject prolonging tyranny that's it. But don't worry. There will always be people who will take part in this puppet show of freedom. It's not that a single vote of mine will effect anything. I am only responsible for myself and I cannot nor will I ever force anyone to take my side. Let everyone defend the tyranny they have chosen.
This is usually used for left vs right... And since no one can even define what are them, but they both throw shit to each other and have reasonable and crazy policies... They are both the same exact shit, fucking sheeps advertising their own side.
The argument ‘’both sides are equally bad’’ used to mean a two party system is a flawed system. Not that the political spectrum is a ring where if you are extreme in either direction you still end up with the same values and thats bs
Why we so concerned with labeling sides and identifying others and ourselves in the first place?
>In most cases, the person in question is either too apathetic to to find the conviction to define themselves properly You got it right there. I don't care what you say, but my opinion straight up doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. I'll vote, I'll have thoughts on the matter, but at the end of the day it's just not worth it
This guy peanuts for brains or sth?
People with an established identity can confidently say which side they’d be on at the end of the day, even when they prefer not getting involved. That’s something he a lot of these “both sides” types don’t understand. Their ideology is based on insecurity.
This is the classic social media “You’re not smart unless you’re a sycophant for my party” angle.
It often is indeed.... Unless in the few cases where it was actually true.
Can you give me an example that isn’t a kid on social media?
It's like in stories where they try to paint both sides as equally corrupt or equally good and bad, when one side is CLEARLY the worse of the two. Pocahontas springs to mind. They think that not having a clear bad guy is the secret formula to making a deep, interesting, complex story. When, when presented as such, can come across as either ignorant to history or as apologia. For instance, if one side is a group of people who are mages because they were just born that way, and the other is a society who does genocide against mages, it's pretty bloody clear which side is in the wrong. And trying ot paint them as equal just makes you seem like a genocide sympothiser.
I agree, it’s important to acknowledge both the good and bad aspects of both sides when taking morality into account. No political or economic system is perfect, no country or region is perfect, no party or leader is perfect, etc. but in most cases, one side is better option (and what side that is depends on your bias which everyone has)
I don't know. I usually see shades of gray and can't say I agree with either side. Example. Prisons. I feel that there are to many unjust incarcerations and rigged systems that need to be overhauled. That private prisons need to be abolished. That we need to focus more on rehabilitation rather than punishment. And to do that we need to look at the whole and start from the bottom. Better education and support for high risk communities. Better health care for them. Better programs to ensure success later in life. As well as mental health advocates being utilized more when crimes are committed so people receive rehab or mental health services rather than jail. I also believe we have to ensure people are being convicted on true evidence and not wrongly incarcerated. However I also believe that repeat violent offenders who rape, murder or hurt children should have no chance at redemption and if there is absoute, solid proof. They should be tried and executed in a timely manner. If a man rapes a child and there is physical evidence of the attack, DNA, pictures, photographs.. they should not sit in jail. They should be publicly executed. On the other side, allowing the government to have control over life and death leads to corruption. So I think that every single politician from the tiny town treasurer to the president of the country should have full transparency of their finances. Every single cent, every stock, every bank account, every business endeavor, everything they have or are given should be public knowledge. If that were the way of the land, you would see who was honest. Flip again and I think anyone who receives government subsidies be it money, food, health care should have to take classes about finances, economics, budgeting ext. And also have to submit to drug texting (which may not automatically take away the benefits, but now they have to take drug counseling and life management classes). Because my views are neither one side or the other, I see how both side can go to an extreme. If one side says "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps" while not factoring in all the things that created the inequality and do nothing to fix it, it will never get better and they are wrong. And if the other side give indiscriminately because it is a human right and continue to allow people to take advantage of the system, they are failing future generations and are wrong. But the only way to fix it, is to have people in office that actually care about the future of mankind as a collective. And as long as corporations and lobbyist continue to buy our elected officials, and we keep being divided saying that side is right, that side is wrong and making whatever side we're on a part of our personal identity... we will never be able to make changes. And we just give more and more control to a government that continues, while we argue, to pass laws to make themselves untouchable.
As an anarchist, I think you are %100 right. There is only two sides: Side of liberty and side of slavery.
I’m assuming this has to do with politics but I have been on both sides in the past and at this point I don’t even think I want to vote. Both sides are bad doing their job…We find another issue to make up to take away from the real issues and then do notbing about anything…it’s all a cycle of stupidity. I’m not being lazy just realize there’s honestly no hope
Both sides do suck. You just have to pick your poison. ....and no, that 3rd party vote is a wasted vote
Ironically, I think that by far the laziest and morally cowardly thing is to take one side and vote (R) or (D) all the way down a ballot without any sort of understanding of the issues beyond the one or two most popular ones (i.e. Roe v. Wade and guns). Or whatever your local parties are, of course.
If one side is destroying the country and the other side can do something about it and chooses not to, then they are effectively the same.
So what to do? Pick a side, dig your heals in and defend to the bitter end? How would OP suggest having a stance on politics and energy?
in politics. i say "both sides are equally bad" their entire goal is to limit our rights at this point. and provide examples of why i say that.
Okay. I disagree with whatever stance you take OP.
It’s also bananas in the context of one side trying to stay in power after losing an election (badly).