6mo ago

Just a reminder

You're viewing a single thread.

762 comments

100% true. "Both sides" arguments exist SOLELY to deflect from awful things done by Republicans, or detract from positive things done by Democrats.
Not once have I seen it deployed for any other purpose.
Edit for the pedants: I should probably have not led with "100% true" before the sentence where I clearly stated my position. Although I think the delta between what I wrote after that and what is in OP is a difference without a distinction, if some of you want to feel like you really got me, you go right ahead.
- How about.
  Both sides are bad. Republicans are worse.
  
  Nope, it's still used as a way to depress Democrat votes. "Both sides are bad. Republicans are worse." is used as an opener to such arguments as:
  vote 3rd party
  reject the system (ie don't vote)
  accelerationism
  do this pie-in-the-sky impossible thing first (communist revolution, etc)
  It's a platform by which people are herded into arguments designed solely to depress Democrat votes, aimed squarely at Democrat voters.
  Just stick with "Republicans are bad".
  
  The "No criticism of the Democrats" strategy may help win the next election, but long term it will only increase dissatisfaction.
  
  Criticism of Democrats is perfectly reasonable in safe Dem districts. Like Diane Feinstein. But at this point, literally any Democrat is better than literally any Republican, so if Dem control is in doubt, stick with blue no matter who.
  Besides, we have a whole primary specifically to criticize Dem candidates. That's when we should be bringing this shit up.
  
  Agreed. I just wish the democratic candidates were better.
  we have a whole primary specifically to criticize Dem candidates.
  2016 showed how ineffective primaries are. The 2020 modifications are lipstick on a pig.
  
  There's this exhaustingly dumb conspiracy theory that Bernie somehow had very broad popular support despite all polls saying otherwise. Bernie didn't have the numbers.
  
  Bernie didn't have the numbers because he didn't have the DNC support, the media support or the pre-assigned superdelegate support.
  However, he did have the numbers to beat Trump which is what really counts.
  
  He had the Republican numbers rofl
  Though blacks, Hispanics, women and moderate voters consistently support either Democratic candidate when faced with Trump as the Republican alternative, there are two significant groups that Sanders wins over by much larger margins than Clinton and help him beat Trump by double digits: Republicans under 30 and Independents who do not lean toward either party.
  I highly doubt these Republicans (and Republicans but too ashamed to admit it) would have done anything other than fall in line like they always have during election season.
  
  I think you underestimate how many Republicans dislike Trump.
- You're 100% assuming motives. "Deployed", lol.
  This is like saying that because we know smoking causes lung cancer, that the ONLY reason anyone smokes is because they're trying to get lung cancer.
  Review Hanlon's Razor, and stop thinking there's sinister conspiracies everywhere, it's bad for your mental health.
  
  Intent doesn't matter. I've never seen it used differently. You are welcome to disagree.
  
  Does it actually matter at all what the intent is if the result is Trump winning and full on reducing the United States to a fascist ethnostate?
  
  Does it actually matter at all what the intent is
  Yes. Demonizing people not because of who they are, but based on your prejudiced assumptions, is in fact bad, it turns out.
  Trump winning and full on reducing the United States to a fascist ethnostate
  Are you trying to get people not to take you seriously? Because insane over-the-top exaggeration like this is a very strong strategy toward that end, if so.
  
  over-the-top exaggeration
  If anything I'm under exaggerating. I'm unconcerned with bOtH sIdEs

762 comments