LogFAQs > #980091234

Being radical in anything isnt very beneficial and that goes for everything including politics. Everything is better with nuance for moderation.

Its common sense that people are complicated creatures that will never fit tightly into any particular box, and I always found it pretty preposterous that both sides is quoted like some sort of damning revelation to discredit a persons opinion or character.

It doesnt make sense to me. Ive always been of the belief that true intelligence is the ability to step out of ones box and being able to understand another persons perspective you dont have to agree with it, but you can at least make an attempt to understand it by placing yourself in their shoes.

That ability to see beyond ones own individual beliefs and moral compass is typically how discussions that lead to drastic change for the benefit of all humanity comes to be. At no point in the existence of humanity have we ever rid ourselves of a problem that plagues humanity by simply refusing to have a dialogue. It just doesnt work.

Even in the moments where change did mostly happen by force or the sheer unbeatable will of a collective community united through a single beliefdid it come from refusing to have a dialogue.

Problems dont solve themselves. In that regard I dont understand the both sides statement being used as a means of insulting or discrediting someone.

It just seems like something thats blurted out by people who are too radicalized in either direction of the political spectrum as an excuse to stay firm in their current positions and not think outside the box. Or at worst, its used in bad faith as a means to gaslight or troll.

Even if you dont have why intention of changing ones stance, its still best communication practices to try and see all sides of every issue because if you dont, then nothing happens. Things just remain the same.

Or at least thats my two cents on the matter. But what do I know. Im just some guy.