Both sides ARE bad. The trick is to use critical thinking and realize that one side is “stupid and misguided” bad and the other is “literal nazi, genocide against minorities, and also very stupid” bad.
Both sides are currently supporting genocide right now.
You might want to fix that.
All lives matter was a racist dog whistle. Both sides are bad is just the sad state of politics where neither major parties actually care about the people.
“Both sides” is an attempt to create a false equivalency between the party that wants to do an end run around our democratic systems/repeal the rights of women and already marginalized nationwide/jail dissenters, and the Democrats.
The Democratic Party has countless problems, but the fact of the matter is the above are incredibly important and imminent threats. Yeah, I’m going to hold my nose and vote for the less-bad option. Because both sides are not the same.
You falling for the theatre one presents a little better, doesn’t mean they don’t both lead to the exact same result, one just does it slower and politely enough to appease moderates such as yourself:
https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/10/14/liberalism-and-fascism-partners-in-crime/
Okay so you admit in your own argument that they’re doing it slower. Yes, I WILL vote for a 50-year plan to fascism over voting for a 2-year plan to fascism, every time, without question. Gives us more time to turn it around before sitting officials burn everything down. At this point in this country I frankly don’t give much of a damn what the Democrat long term goals are anymore because the Republican party is such an immediate and obvious threat to safety, democracy, and human decency. Given such an environment it’s obvious that a few decades (or less) from now we’re going to be dealing with significant problems in the Democratic party, since it’s so easy to choose to usher them into power right now - it’s easy for bad actors to abuse that. And frankly there are already problems in the Democratic party. But I’d rather deal with that then, than deal with Republican ideals now, because instituting Republican ideals now will not leave us with a future where we even have the choice to deal with Democrat problems.
So in summary: “both sides bad”?
(Hint: the Democrats long term goals are to lose to the fascists on purpose because that’s how they maximize their funding/support from liberalesque individuals like yourself.)
Very interesting hint. I do agree though, one is wolf in sheep’s clothing, other is wolf in wolf’s clothing. MLK Jr. had something to say about that:
I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negroes’ great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s “Counciler” or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can’t agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a “more convenient season.”
I get why people want to choose the smaller evil but sometimes it’s necessary to point out all evils and head towards a stateless society.
But maybe that’s the difference between “both sides bad” and “two sides bad”
You’re not wrong that we should be able to critique everyone in government, but that’s not what people are taking issue with so it’s not really the problem. You’re kind of omitting the second half. “Both sides are the same, so it doesn’t make a difference what I do/I’ll just keep voting the way I have/I won’t vote because it doesn’t matter.”
I just don’t understand how “both sides are the same” could possibly hold any water after Roe was repealed. That’s evidence enough to the contrary, but people are far more concerned with sounding like they are “above the fray” and being perceived as big brain skeptics (even if they are uninformed on the issues) so they repeat it anyway. That or they are still voting MAGA and want to create a false equivalency.
It comes down to this, I know Biden is supporting killing innocent children in Palestine.
We can roll back policies that dumb fucker trump might try because people will still be alive.
We might need another trump presidency to show people that they need to do more than support genocide supporting candidates.
Maybe if it gets bad enough the rest of you will join us in not accepting shitty candidates as good enough.
They say you get less radical as you get older, but the older I get, the more I think it’s time to let the system burn and try again.
sort of
But I do think there is a legitimate ACAB angle here, to slice it by power dynamics instead: All political leaders are bastards.
It’s not just one nation vs another, it’s also civilians vs the political elite. So while I agree it’s wrong to say “both sides are equally to blame”, there are other useful perspectives. I think.
It’s not just one nation vs another, it’s also civilians vs the political elite
Breaking it down further: it is the proletariat vs the dictatorship of capital (the mechanisms by which the capitalist class collectively rules) representing the interests of the capitalist class.
Depends on the specific conflict you’re talking about. Is this about American politics? Palestine? Ukraine?
For example I wouldn’t say that the dictatorship of capital is an especially pertinent aspect of the ruling elite when discussing the Palestine conflict, but it certainly is when discussing American politics.
I mean yeah, colonialism and capitalism are tied together at the hip, and Palestinians resisting the settler state of Israel is pretty directly related to resisting capitalist violence.
Throwing in the standard disclaimer of “my family was affected by the holocaust and I know several anti-zionist israelis who think Israel doesn’t have a right to exist” because some people get really weird about this opinion.
Everything is related to everything, so if course colonialism and by extension capitalism plays a part. And while capitalists are absolutely using both sides for their own gains, I don’t think there driving force of the conflict comes down to capital, but a conflict of non-economic ideologies.
But, it’s a very large conflict with a very long history, so not only am I not an expert, but the nature of the conflict may have many aspects that change over time.
I don’t think there driving force of the conflict comes down to capital, but a conflict of non-economic ideologies.
Well, you’re incorrect. Israel is a settler colonial venture, that is where the conflict comes from, not a difference in religious beliefs.
But, it’s a very large conflict with a very long history, so not only am I not an expert, but the nature of the conflict may have many aspects that change over time.
The region was really peaceful before the colonial project actually, I mean of course the ottoman empire wasn’t great but there wasn’t a lot of notable ethnic conflict in the region.
Yeah, people need to stop condemning plaestinians for resisting genocide.
Oh this is about voting lol.
You know, this shit is frustrating. Imagine every day everyone has to vote whether 10 people in lets say a group of 30 will be hit with a bat 4 times or 5 times, and everyone else gets hit once.
And you talk to the other people, and say “we have to stop these people hitting us with bats or we’re all going to die” and they respond with “but you’re going to vote for those people to be hit four times, right? Getting hit 5 times is much worse! We have to devote all our time and effort to making sure the 4 times option wins!” And of course they’re one of the people who only gets hit once either way.
This is an ancient opinion. People have been complaining about America’s two party system for literal centuries.
I thought this was about Israel doing a genocide because people (especially Israeli people) can’t separate Hamas from Palestine.
But everyone seems to be taking it as a commentary on the two party system despite only one of these things being new to this year?
“The son of YOUR president took a single bribe and showed his ding dong on the internet, my president rapes women, lies about his finances, commits fraud and incites an insurrection! See both side are bad!”
I find it interesting that the hamas Israel conflict has become such a political issue. Support of Israel in general, yeah religiously charged. But Hamas did start the attack and do a ton of fucked up stuff. SO many hostages including Americans. Israel is an oppressive government and from a distance seems systemically racist not just overly defensive. I just feel like this is a more nuanced issue
Removed by mod
I just think it’s worth noting that Hamas does call for the destruction of Israel. You can’t discount one set of lost lives for another. The only real victims here are non-Hamas Palestinians
Both sides are bad the same way that day-past-expiration milk and arsenic are both yucky
Hunter has done a lot more worse than that. Nice on you picking and choosing his weakness offences.
It doesn’t matter though, he’s not the president and is not involved in any politicalmatters. Sure, he should be investigated if he did something wrong, but why is that relevant?
Hunter isn’t even in a political office! He shouldn’t even be on anyone’s radar. And you sir/madam are part of the problem.
Both sides are bad. Yes, one is considerably worse than the other, but that doesn’t make the alternative good, it just makes it better.
Good is relative. And relatively speaking, one is definitely good compared to the other.
It’s not good of its own merit though, it’s only good compared to something worse. Neither party represents the interests of the average working class individual.
Literally nothing is “good of its own merit”. Because literally nothing is intrinsically “good”.
“Good” is a subjective idea, not objectively measurable, so it will always be in reference to another, i.e. relative.
Removed by mod
Both are consistent within the confines of the definition.
Maybe for you that’s the case, I definitely have a definition of morally good and both sides aren’t that. Accepting collateral for example. You can’t be good in my book if you’re doing that, and they both did.
