• octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    70
    arrow-down
    31
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    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.

      • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        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”.

          • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            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.

            • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              5 months ago

              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.

              • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                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.

                  • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    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.

    • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      29
      ·
      5 months ago

      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.

      • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        5 months ago

        Intent doesn’t matter. I’ve never seen it used differently. You are welcome to disagree.

      • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        5 months ago

        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?

        • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          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.

          • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            over-the-top exaggeration

            If anything I’m under exaggerating. I’m unconcerned with bOtH sIdEs

          • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            You can look at the sea of political discussion on social media and see for yourself.

            I very clearly related my own experience. You don’t need to agree with me, and I don’t demand that you do.

            If you don’t agree. (and I’m guessing you don’t) I doubt very much that any singular example I link is going to change your mind, and I don’t care enough about changing it to link a bunch of them for you. I frankly don’t know how it’s possible to engage in these sorts of discussions online and not observe this exact phenomenon, though.

            • Victoria Antoinette @lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              14
              ·
              5 months ago

              my guess is that no one has ever said “both sides are bad. i hope by spreading this message, voter turnout is supressed.” if such a thing has happened, it’s not on me to provide evidence to support your claim. i simply disbelieve your claim, and will not believe it unless i have evidence to the contrary.

              • StinkyOnions@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                10
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                This is what you’re guilty of invincible ignorance fallacy, or better yet, the argument by pigheadedness.

                the person in question simply refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given. It is not so much a fallacious tactic in argument as it is a refusal to argue in the proper sense of the word. The method used in this fallacy is either to make assertions with no consideration of objections or to simply dismiss objections by calling them excuses, conjecture, anecdotal, etc. or saying that they are proof of nothing, all without actually demonstrating how the objections fit these terms. It is similar to the ad lapidem fallacy, in which the person rejects all the evidence and logic presented, without providing any evidence or logic that could lead to a different conclusion.