Current Events > People get triggered by "both sides"

(+) Yeah! (+)

Or, conversely, we have the reasoning skills, common sense, and empathy to understand all positions, and after analyzing and considering all of the evidence, have concluded that one side is decisively worse than the other.

Or, conversely, we have the reasoning skills, common sense, and empathy to understand all positions, and after analyzing and considering all of the evidence, have concluded that one side is decisively worse than the other.

One side openly has been endorsing racism, Russian terrorism, homophobia, participated in treason, destroyed the Constitution, wrecked the economy, blocked formula from being given to infants during this difficult time, and reduce workers rights.

The other side wants trans people to not get ridiculed, wants people to get enough money to keep the economy afloat, stop racism, fix education, and uphold the constitution. But it has blue haired people.

Whats the issue?

Or, conversely, we have the reasoning skills, common sense, and empathy to understand all positions, and after analyzing and considering all of the evidence, have concluded that one side is decisively worse than the other.

There's are a few situations where "both sides" is a valid argument. On CE it comes across as whataboutisms most of the time though

Maybe like 5% of people do, the rest just use it as a crutch because they self destruct whenever context and nuance is involved

Describe to us the context and nuance the left is ignoring on issues such as abortion, trans rights, and gay marriage.

What is the correct balance between banning things and freely allowing them? Between no one's business and the government having an obligation to make it their business?

Or, conversely, we have the reasoning skills, common sense, and empathy to understand all positions, and after analyzing and considering all of the evidence, have concluded that one side is decisively worse than the other.

I've noticed the "both sides" people say they're nuanced and then take the most black-and-white positions possible.

If you were serious, you could say that one side needs to be better on the issue, while also bringing up some positive elements of their position on that issue and why they're ultimately better than the other side even if not perfect.

The core tenant of the "both sides" philosophy is to act like everything is exactly 50/50.

TC: "Opinion X"
Anyone else: *blinks*
TC: "YOU SO TRIGGERED!!!!!!"

I've noticed the "both sides" people say they're nuanced and then take the most black-and-white positions possible.

If you were serious, you could say that one side needs to be better on the issue, while also bringing up some positive elements of their position on that issue and why they're ultimately better than the other side even if not perfect.

The core tenant of the "both sides" philosophy is to act like everything is exactly 50/50.

Btw. You guys are also doing what both political sides do to each other too. You find the dumbest people who claim the group and you go "Ha, that's all of them!". It's a good way to keep a very shallow understanding of who you're trying to convince are wrong. You guys completely throw away the wisdom of learning your "enemy". It's strategically embarrassing.

You learn a lot more when you accept that people who don't think like you immediately might actually have some intelligence on something.

You find the dumbest people who claim the group and you go "Ha, that's all of them!". It's a good way to keep a very shallow understanding of who you're trying to convince are wrong.

People get triggered by both sides because they dont have the reasoning skills, common sense, or empathy to understand all positions involved.

People get triggered by both sides because they dont have the reasoning skills, common sense, or empathy to understand all positions involved.