• gedaliyah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    143
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    28 days ago

    This is a false equivalence from the beginning. The far right has been more dangerous than the far left in America for at least a century.

      • Entertainmeonly@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        30
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        27 days ago

        Ya, the far left. You know, the lunatics that want to tax you and give your taxes to schools. For extremist purposes like new books and free school lunches. The far left. The terrorists that want to put the good American insurance companies out on the streets, and take taxes away from the woefully under funded military industrial complex, so that the person without a job, because they are too lazy to grow their legs back, can get free housing and medical attention. They are just so extreme. Nothing like the good god fearing right that only want to protect the children. From eating, reading, and generally being able to form a coherent opinion. That’s what the Bible is there for. Or the Qur’an. Depending on your flavor text.

        • tortina_original@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          27 days ago

          Yeah, I am old enough (and from Europe) to remember walhat “far left” looked like and what they did.

          So yeah, it is insane having to read anyone mentioning “far left” in the context of today, especially in the context of USA.

          I mean, those nasty far left commie terrorists, wanting medical care and to be left alone.

          Tsk, tsk, tsk…

      • ghurab@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        27 days ago

        Well, Islam is a right wing ideology. So I’m guessing 3/4 of attacks are by white nationalist and Christian fundamentalists, makes the rights share close 98% if these numbers are correct

  • grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    66
    ·
    edit-2
    28 days ago

    No, that’s fallacious in two ways: equivocation and appeal to emotion. Neutrality is not defined by upsetting both sides equally, because that means one side could shift the definition of neutral in their favor by being (or pretending to be) more upset.

    Actual neutrality requires objectivity and calling out crocodile tears based on exaggerations (or even wholly imaginary issues, for that matter) as what they are.

    • undergroundoverground@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      26 days ago

      I beleive the first would be an appeal to moderation fallacy. I mean, you’re right in calling out the illogical BS. I’m just saying I think it’s this particular flavour of illogical BS.

      I’m sure you can see your way out of one just fine but favourite way to call out an appeal to moderation fallacy is to ask “if I said the sky was predominantly yellow and you, rightly, corrected me and said it was predominantly blue, would it be logical for a third person to conclude that the sky was green?”

  • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    28 days ago

    When since he bought it have they (justifiably) upset the right? I admittedly wouldn’t necessarily know but I just haven’t seen that

    • ArbiterXero@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      28 days ago

      He eventually got rid of a few openly nazi folks under threat of shuttering his platform.

      Took a long time and a lot of threats though……

    • DaddleDew@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      28 days ago

      Before he took over it would upset the far right. Now it almost exclusively upsets the left. See? It’s even now! /s

    • Valmond@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      28 days ago

      He probably thinks of the right as to the right of his worldviews and the same with the left.

  • JoYo@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    27 days ago

    so Twitter doesn’t deserve public trust. seems obvious to me.

    • daikiki@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      27 days ago

      Plenty of things to choose from. You could, for example,

      -Exist while not being a bright shade of pink or orange

      -Know basic math

      -Love your neighbor

      -Not live in fear of strawmen

      -Demonstrate the most basic of critical thinking skills

      -Dislike dictators

      -Not care about what other people do in their bedroom

      -Support access to medical care

      -Want rich people to pay their dues

      -Not be a complete tool

      Any one of those things would be enough, but for maximum effect, I suggest doing all of them.

  • pack@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    28 days ago

    Except it’s not, he thinks he’s consistent. Far left and far right are a matter of perspective, and from where he sits, far left is trying to not deadname someone, starting a union, or progressive taxation. His far right is somewhere past suggesting gas chambers for social deviants.

  • Jagothaciv@kbin.earth
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    28 days ago

    This dude sounds like he needs a boot to the mouth. I swear every time he tries to sound smart he comes off as incredibly dumb, just like his ugly weirdo mother and father.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      28 days ago

      And a perfect example of how it’s almost invariably disingenuous right-wingers performing it.

  • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    28 days ago

    Anything that involves people at scale, will contain politics. Whether that’s interpersonal politics or government politics. People will eventually become polarized based on their political views.

    • HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      28 days ago

      I’m gonna dissect a definition so I can agree with you: from dictionary.com: Politics: the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, especially the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power.

      Seems pretty clearcut to me

  • Maxnmy's@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    28 days ago

    No, they just equate “neutrality” with their way being the status quo. It is a very intentional choice to shift the Overton window by insisting that this is neutrality.