this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2023
122 points (100.0% liked)

Politics

10192 readers
21 users here now

In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.

Guidelines for submissions:

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
122
The "Both Sides" Argument (web.archive.org)
submitted 2 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
49 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

"When someone says both sides, its obvious they have not been watching the actions of the political parties. Lets look how they vote." - /u/armored_cat

Really annoys me when I read apathetic people saying that Dems and Reps are the same. Yes, there's a lot of crony corpos in the Dems side but they are in no way even close to the same. There's a lot of stuff the Dems have done that I'm not a fan of, but are still not even close to being the same as Reps.

This is a great comment that outlines the stark differences on voting records that I archived so it wasn't lost.

They are not the same, make sure you vote to keep the fascists out. Also vote in the primaries so we can get more progressive/populist representatives as candidates. Voting is not the only answer to salvage the future but it's definitely a part of the answer.

top 47 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 42 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

The thing that upsets me so much about the both sides argument is that while it's an absolute nonsense, the dems have done a good job of working hard at doing nothing and allowing people to maintain this illusion.

Neoliberalism adopted during the clinton era and their pull right and unwillingness to stand for or fight for anything outside a few token causes is what lead us to where we are. Like think of all the blue collar voters that would probably still be voting blue if the dems didnt spend 2 decades being indifferent or anti-union and enacting policies that helped line the pockets of big businesses

[–] [email protected] 38 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Also vote in local elections

They matter a huge amount for how your state, county, and city function.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

We're learning that lesson in spades now with all the shriekers and Bible thumpers trying to stack school boards, ban books and curriculums.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yes, also very important and can't believe I missed including local elections! Good call out!

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 years ago

No worries, many people overlook them or forget to bring them up all the time.

Hell this last election in my locality was with a hundred votes in some cases.

Talk to your neighbors, talk to locals, be the advocate for your community if you can. Even if all you flip is a single vote that's a single vote more than before.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 years ago

vote in local elections, vote in primaries. Get as many progressives in as you can.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 years ago

I'm ashamed to admit that I paid them no attention when I was younger. I have changed that now, though.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Oh yeah, this kind of language really chaps my caboose.

Which party is actively supporting trans rights, and which one is making it illegal to be trans? And if that doesn't resonate with you, replace trans with Black, Muslim, woman,... basically any minority you'd care to name.

If someone feel like both parties are the same, they live in a bubble of such overwhelming privilege that they must be totally disconnected from anyone unlike them.

Certainly Democrats are not perfect, but "not perfect" is a far cry from "trying to kill minorities." There's just no comparison.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 years ago

chaps my caboose.

I love this, thank you for that lol

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 years ago

They're also trying to kill children by taking away school meals.

You know, those same children they claim to protect by making abortion illegal? Yeah.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 2 years ago

I used to compare voting to a choice between a punch in the stomach vs a kick in the balls.

Nowadays it's a bit closer to a punch in the stomach vs repeatedly stabbed with a dirty needle by a guy hearing voices.

Like yeah, both sides are bad, but one is a LOT worse than the other.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I'm personally a pretty hardcore leftist, and from this position both liberalism and conservatism are too right leaning for me. Of course the democrats are closer to me, but I think it's important to keep in mind they are conservative lite, not truly left leaning. Establishment Dems in particular do not have the best interests in the people in mind, similar to Republicans. "Both sides" are acting to preserve capitalism and consolidate power, not distribute it.

With that in mind, the typical "both sides" argument that there's extremists on both sides is ludicrous to me. Extreme leftism doesn't mean forgiving student debt or implementing a UBI, it's banning corporations in lieu of co-ops, or replacing any company that provides things we need to survive with state-run monopolies (like single payer healthcare, for example). Neither side is left enough, and rhetoric that there's a happy medium between the two parties will end with us being incredibly right leaning.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 years ago

Completely agree, the Dems have a lot of changing to do before they're close to representing what the people truly want and need. But they are the political party that's more left leaning and could more easily be pushed to a progressive stance with proper primary turnout from voters. You raise a lot of additional points on areas they need to improve on that I didn't cover in the post though.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yeah, the US is now in this weird state where center right policies are accused of being communist.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It sucks that you can almost never say anything criticizing the Dems without a bunch of political white knights knee jerking "SO YOU WANT REPUBLICANS IN OFFICE??!!!"

No, just want Dems to be less like the Republicans I grew up with 40 years ago.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 years ago

"I'm going to vote against Joe Manchin, first chance I get to in a democratic primary"

"So you want to vote for a republican?"

"No, I intend to vote in a democratic primary for an actual democrat"

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I'm going to throw in a defense of saying both sides for the sake of argument. Both sides can be guilty of similar behavior and pointing that out should not imply symmetry between them. I personally find it frustrating to discuss topics that aren't framed explicitly as right VS left because you immediately get piled of for "both sides aren't the same!!".

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 years ago

You're unusual. Most people say "both sides" as an attempt to shut down discussion or as another flavor of "what aboutism".

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

In my experience, there are two kinds of people that say both sides are the same.

Apathetic voters and libertarians (ie conservatives who figured out saying they're a conservative makes most of the country hate them).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago

Exactly, nobody that says it is doing it to actually add anything or advance the conversation. One of my biggest pet peeves when discussing politics, just look at the link I posted. They're nowhere close to the same, you'd have to be willfully ignorant of the data.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Wait until you realize that both sides is true, but not because there isn't a difference between them. Both parties do suck. One just sucks worse, and so long as we accept the two party system, that's the way it'll be. We're stuck picking the lesser evil

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

The way I put it, I don't like either, but one doesn't want my friends dead, so I'll begrudgingly vote for them.

I desperately want to vote for someone who genuinely supports the workers. There's plenty of demand for American manufacturing, no one wants to take the jobs because they've historically been low paying, grueling, unfulfilling, and dangerous and our culture has repeatedly beat it into people's heads that they are failures if they work in a factory instead of an office (and those in the office deserve protection and support of the government too) I'm not very far left but a government that doesn't support labor doesn't support itself.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Yeah, almost every issue with jobs in the US could be fixed with more pay. "Nobody wants to work anymore" my ass. Paying more would solve literally almost every single problem.

If they want domestic manufacturing, pay people more.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago

It's either that or revolution, and the vast majority of people are disinclined to start a war over politicians being politicians.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 years ago

The political system filters out the noncompliant, so the parties start to resemble one another.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The solution to the "both sides" argument is to develop a rigorous system of values based on purely logical reasoning with a definitive answer to what is ethical and what cannot be tolerated. As long as people follow emotional arguments and lines of reasoning based on higher-level concepts that fail to highlight the chain of proof that has led to their truth, then uncertainty will cause inaction and complacency.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I see how you got the mathematician part of your name.

Unfortunately, most people rely almost exclusively on emotive reasoning and even those who try to do better have trouble nailing down the exact values of humanity with mathematical sharpness. It stands high on my list of reasons to expect humanity not to survive the century, unfortunately. If you have a novel process to this end to point to I would be quite interested.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I find that the policies built on "logic only" tend to break down because they ignore emotion and feelings entirely. People are emotional by nature and our feelings, sense of well-being, sense of justice, sense of oppression, and so on are very real in that they drive how we react and respond to each other. Trying to make a utopia based on people not reacting to their emotions is like trying to make a utopia where people don't need to eat - it might be nice, but it's unrealistic.

Imagine if someone came up and kept stabbing you with a rusty pin every day, and whenever you jump away and say "ow!" they roll their eyes and say "logically, this shouldn't bother you, because it only hurts for a second, you're not bleeding and I know that this pin won't give you tetanus. You're being very irrational right now." Based on their logic, they're right, you won't be measurably hurt, but it still has a real effect on you and you'll want to do everything you can to stop getting randomly stabbed by a rusty pin every day. Your lived experience is real to you.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago

Your arguments have nothing to do with my comment and distract from the point. There is nothing similar between lacking the need to eat or being abused with a nail and the fact that consistent and fair political ideas must be rational in nature. I didn't claim that emotions are not relevant.

Emotions represent beliefs which, if they match what ia metaphysically true, will ve logical. Emotions that conflict with facts represent miscalculations. The point is that, since ethics can be based off of logic from starting principles about humans and the universe, it should be followed as such instead of being tugges in any given direction by populism.

At any rate, you're right that others don't support the idea.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Firstly, that pessimistic attitude is invading the minds of many and all it does is confuse values and prevent progress, so I would recommend focusing on doing what you can to assert your values and bring change rather than spreading fatalism.

Secondly, this formulation has been done to a great extent by Ayn Rand, and reading Peikoff's full exploration of her ideas would be a great way to see this in detail. I think her prejudice prevents her from reasoning accurately on some higher-level points, but the point is that ethics and politics can be derived from basic axioms specifically because all humans have one core value of their own continued existence. I've been working the details out and I'd like to talk about it if you are interested in playing with the ideas.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Ayn Rand is so very much not the person I want to be the guiding light for AGI. That's not even a subtle failure.

Anyhow, this is the stuff I'm actually pretty focused on in day to day life. I have a fair degree of fatalism because I have a well-grounded idea of exactly how hard it is. That doesn't mean I've given up, but I don't think covering our eyes and ears and saying, "LA LA LA SHUTUPSHUTUPSHUTUP" is going t solve the problem.

"Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Have you really looked into her philosophical work? I think she's historically the closest to constructing a convincing ethical system based on logical principles connected to reality. Your last quote is something that might as well have been a toned-down version of her ideas, given how close it is to what she believed in her life.

I don't suggest ignoring anything. However, many people take the fatalist perspective as a careful one without really evaluating its accuracy, and thus it spreads and locks an uncertain future into the result it assumes.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The "greed is good actually" line is the one I take issue with. It's very shortsighted and I really don't want anything with more power than our species taking it to heart.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Okay, but have you read a construction of her actual system? It's not about greed, it's a system of ethics based on two things: basic metaphysical axioms you must accept to even consider any kind of philosophical discourse, and the fact that human being are alive. It sounds impossible, but she created a 100% objective system of ethics based on these principles, hence the name Objectivism. The point isn't whether you like the idea or not, the point is whether you understand the logical origin of the ideas and why they are correct. It's a deeply interesting system if you want to fully examine it. Here is a link to an objective source on her work including many criticisms that might help you understand it better if that's something you wish to do.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ayn-rand/notes.html#note-7

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

So why were her fiction books about "Screw you I got mine", as well as her life? Was she a terrible representative of her system, or is there perhaps an issue with the system?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Ad hominem and a complete mischaracterization of Rand and her books? At this point I don't know if we're talking about the same person.

Yes, Objecticism is founded on ethical egoism, but altruistic values are emphasized when they are consequences of basic virtues. There isno emphasis on failing to help others, but instead encouragement to do so only when one truly wishes to, free of guilt for what one has earned.

Also, Rand lived a rather generous life herself i many ways, especially for an egoist. Also, claiming her system of ethics is bad because she is a bad person is circular and useless. ;)

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

If she exemplified her system of ethics, and also was a bad person, then yes, the system is bad. If she failed to exemplify her system of ethics, it doesn't tell us much one way or the other about the quality of that system regardless of her behavior. It's not an ad hominem when we are directly talking about systems of ethics, to discuss a person's behavior.

I don't see all the wealthy people running away from paying taxes for the common good to be much of an example of altruism. Charity, as a system of dealing with social issues, does not work. Assistance needs to be spread out evenhandedly, not as a system of rewards and punishments for doing whatever the wealthy find pleasing. I'm not sure how someone could make a stand that that's not just pushing people to be performing animals for treats, which is gross.

Is there a specific single book on her philosophy that covers it all that you'd suggest I read? I do want to be evenhanded about this, and it has been some time since I read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, at the insistence of a business major friend of mine who thought I was too altruistic and needed some tempering.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago

The way you talk about Rand, her life, and her philosophy sounds like you get those beliefs from others who have processed these things already. I remember being told by a professor od philosophy that ethical egoism was "screw you, I've got mine" just as you have said, and that because Rand died as a result of her smoking and she cheated on her husband at one point, clearly her ideas are worthless. These examples constitite a straw man and ad hominem, plain and simple, circular as well. The fact that you and this think that an ethical system can be "bad" instead of just "inaccurate" demonstrates that you are assuming an ethical system already to wvaluate it; this must be avoided, because it is impossible to learn without accepting ideas that contradict one's current beliefs and values.

As for the ineffective nature of charity...mathematically, that's not true. But either way, in Objectivism, ethical egoism condemns force and any moral obligation to be altruistic, so any direct welware program would be unethical. If you want to give people a chance at a better life, all you can do is lend a hand to those in need...AKA you can volunteer every week like me, or look into Effective Altruism, which I am sure you are very familiar with already. Altruism in this sense of the word is good because it increases the wealth of society, thereby increasing my chance of happiness in life. However, it is certainly not true that every last person who doesn't want to work to survive--I know and have known plenty of people like this--deserves the resources of those who are highly productive. On the other hand, chariry is a value Ayn Rand holds, but only when one can not only spare it, but serves to benefit from it, which is not as uncommon a situation as you might think.

Finally, for a book, "Objecticism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand" is a full construction of her philosophy from core principles onward. If you read it, try to follow the logic from basic principles onward and derive the whole system before you judge it emotionally, and see if it holds its own as a philosophy. Good luck, I hope you benefit from it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago (5 children)

No, they are not the same political parties, make sure you vote to keep the communists out. Also, vote in the primaries so we can get more conservative/freedom representatives as candidates. Voting is not the only answer to salvage the future but it's definitely a part of the answer.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 2 years ago

Calling Democrats "communists" is such an advanced misunderstanding of both communism and the Democratic party that it's pretty tough to take you seriously.

What freedoms exactly do your "freedom" representatives provide? You can't do what you want with your body, choose the God you worship, decide who to love, or even the best way to live your life. They know what's best for you and will legislate it.

So, really, only the "freedom" to do precisely what they tell you... which is no freedom at all.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 years ago

Hey look it's that thing where somebody says something on the internet so brick fucking stupid you can't tell if you're looking at an actual moron or a masterful satire.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 years ago

Best wishes on a swift recovery from your head trauma/brain tumor/etc.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

How do you feel about your moron fake president wiping his fat ass with the nuclear codes?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago

What is freedom-loving about conservatives? They often spend more than Democrats, are just as invested in welfare, and skirt the line on LGBT issues and freedom of education these days. Democrats can be bad in extreme cases for sure, and I don't like them just because I dislike conservatism, but "conservative" presidents won't bring freedom, if you mean Trump and the like.

load more comments
view more: next ›