Cancelled!

Merkin Baller

The Fallacy (and Laziness) of Both-Sides-ism

“Today’s Republican Party . . . is an insurgent outlier. It has become ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understandings of fact, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of it’s political opposition, all but declaring war on the government. The Democratic Party, while no paragon of civic virtue, is more ideologically centered and diverse, protective of the government’s role as it developed over the course of the last century, open to incremental changes in policy fashioned through bargaining with the Republicans and less disposed to or adept at take-no-prisoners conflict between the parties.

“This asymmetry between the parties, which journalists and scholars often brush aside or whitewash in a quest for ‘balance,’ constitutes a huge obstacle to effective governance.”

While there are individual exceptions, the Republicans as a political party have shown themselves less interested in actual governance than in throwing spanners in the works — or simply eliminating “the works,” as in the National Security Council office focused on global health and pandemics. This becomes a real problem in a crisis like the current one.

In the balance of Klein’s chapter he discusses structural factors that have kept the Democratic Party closer to accepted civic norms and established institutions (an argument borne out by Biden being their leading candidate for the nomination). Their language is restrained. But their point is clear — the two parties aren’t the same. To act as if they are is false." 

https://www.postalley.org/2020/04/05/the-fallacy-and-laziness-of-both-sides-ism/

Halifax2TheMax

Merkin Baller said:

The Fallacy (and Laziness) of Both-Sides-ism

“Today’s Republican Party . . . is an insurgent outlier. It has become ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understandings of fact, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of it’s political opposition, all but declaring war on the government. The Democratic Party, while no paragon of civic virtue, is more ideologically centered and diverse, protective of the government’s role as it developed over the course of the last century, open to incremental changes in policy fashioned through bargaining with the Republicans and less disposed to or adept at take-no-prisoners conflict between the parties.

“This asymmetry between the parties, which journalists and scholars often brush aside or whitewash in a quest for ‘balance,’ constitutes a huge obstacle to effective governance.”

While there are individual exceptions, the Republicans as a political party have shown themselves less interested in actual governance than in throwing spanners in the works — or simply eliminating “the works,” as in the National Security Council office focused on global health and pandemics. This becomes a real problem in a crisis like the current one.

In the balance of Klein’s chapter he discusses structural factors that have kept the Democratic Party closer to accepted civic norms and established institutions (an argument borne out by Biden being their leading candidate for the nomination). Their language is restrained. But their point is clear — the two parties aren’t the same. To act as if they are is false." 

https://www.postalley.org/2020/04/05/the-fallacy-and-laziness-of-both-sides-ism/

Buh, buh, buh Hunter’s laptop!

tempo_n_groove

Merkin Baller said:

The Fallacy (and Laziness) of Both-Sides-ism

“Today’s Republican Party . . . is an insurgent outlier. It has become ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understandings of fact, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of it’s political opposition, all but declaring war on the government. The Democratic Party, while no paragon of civic virtue, is more ideologically centered and diverse, protective of the government’s role as it developed over the course of the last century, open to incremental changes in policy fashioned through bargaining with the Republicans and less disposed to or adept at take-no-prisoners conflict between the parties.

“This asymmetry between the parties, which journalists and scholars often brush aside or whitewash in a quest for ‘balance,’ constitutes a huge obstacle to effective governance.”

While there are individual exceptions, the Republicans as a political party have shown themselves less interested in actual governance than in throwing spanners in the works — or simply eliminating “the works,” as in the National Security Council office focused on global health and pandemics. This becomes a real problem in a crisis like the current one.

In the balance of Klein’s chapter he discusses structural factors that have kept the Democratic Party closer to accepted civic norms and established institutions (an argument borne out by Biden being their leading candidate for the nomination). Their language is restrained. But their point is clear — the two parties aren’t the same. To act as if they are is false." 

https://www.postalley.org/2020/04/05/the-fallacy-and-laziness-of-both-sides-ism/

If you try to argue his point you'll get "nope, see, he says it right here."

I get the science as evidence part.  That can't be stressed enough.  Too many republicans put their head in the sand or throw their hands up about it.  That is something I just don't get.

Merkin Baller

tempo_n_groove said:

Merkin Baller said:

The Fallacy (and Laziness) of Both-Sides-ism

“Today’s Republican Party . . . is an insurgent outlier. It has become ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understandings of fact, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of it’s political opposition, all but declaring war on the government. The Democratic Party, while no paragon of civic virtue, is more ideologically centered and diverse, protective of the government’s role as it developed over the course of the last century, open to incremental changes in policy fashioned through bargaining with the Republicans and less disposed to or adept at take-no-prisoners conflict between the parties.

“This asymmetry between the parties, which journalists and scholars often brush aside or whitewash in a quest for ‘balance,’ constitutes a huge obstacle to effective governance.”

While there are individual exceptions, the Republicans as a political party have shown themselves less interested in actual governance than in throwing spanners in the works — or simply eliminating “the works,” as in the National Security Council office focused on global health and pandemics. This becomes a real problem in a crisis like the current one.

In the balance of Klein’s chapter he discusses structural factors that have kept the Democratic Party closer to accepted civic norms and established institutions (an argument borne out by Biden being their leading candidate for the nomination). Their language is restrained. But their point is clear — the two parties aren’t the same. To act as if they are is false." 

https://www.postalley.org/2020/04/05/the-fallacy-and-laziness-of-both-sides-ism/

If you try to argue his point you'll get "nope, see, he says it right here."

I get the science as evidence part.  That can't be stressed enough.  Too many republicans put their head in the sand or throw their hands up about it.  That is something I just don't get.

It's an op-ed, you can argue it all you want. 

I think the points are valid, but if you don't, feel free to push back. 

tempo_n_groove

Merkin Baller said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Merkin Baller said:

The Fallacy (and Laziness) of Both-Sides-ism

“Today’s Republican Party . . . is an insurgent outlier. It has become ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understandings of fact, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of it’s political opposition, all but declaring war on the government. The Democratic Party, while no paragon of civic virtue, is more ideologically centered and diverse, protective of the government’s role as it developed over the course of the last century, open to incremental changes in policy fashioned through bargaining with the Republicans and less disposed to or adept at take-no-prisoners conflict between the parties.

“This asymmetry between the parties, which journalists and scholars often brush aside or whitewash in a quest for ‘balance,’ constitutes a huge obstacle to effective governance.”

While there are individual exceptions, the Republicans as a political party have shown themselves less interested in actual governance than in throwing spanners in the works — or simply eliminating “the works,” as in the National Security Council office focused on global health and pandemics. This becomes a real problem in a crisis like the current one.

In the balance of Klein’s chapter he discusses structural factors that have kept the Democratic Party closer to accepted civic norms and established institutions (an argument borne out by Biden being their leading candidate for the nomination). Their language is restrained. But their point is clear — the two parties aren’t the same. To act as if they are is false." 

https://www.postalley.org/2020/04/05/the-fallacy-and-laziness-of-both-sides-ism/

If you try to argue his point you'll get "nope, see, he says it right here."

I get the science as evidence part.  That can't be stressed enough.  Too many republicans put their head in the sand or throw their hands up about it.  That is something I just don't get.

It's an op-ed, you can argue it all you want. 

I think the points are valid, but if you don't, feel free to push back. 

Meh, we won't agree anyways so it's pointless.  I said my reasoning already anyways.

If you think about it more if you don't like what a side stands for you have to pick one so you just go Conservative.  We are made to choose a side.  This is why Trump was elected in the first place.  This is why I'd love a third party system.

Can we bring back the Whigs? They were the Libertarians for their time.  I'm sure they did stupid shit back then too though.

Halifax2TheMax

tempo_n_groove said:

Merkin Baller said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Merkin Baller said:

The Fallacy (and Laziness) of Both-Sides-ism

“Today’s Republican Party . . . is an insurgent outlier. It has become ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understandings of fact, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of it’s political opposition, all but declaring war on the government. The Democratic Party, while no paragon of civic virtue, is more ideologically centered and diverse, protective of the government’s role as it developed over the course of the last century, open to incremental changes in policy fashioned through bargaining with the Republicans and less disposed to or adept at take-no-prisoners conflict between the parties.

“This asymmetry between the parties, which journalists and scholars often brush aside or whitewash in a quest for ‘balance,’ constitutes a huge obstacle to effective governance.”

While there are individual exceptions, the Republicans as a political party have shown themselves less interested in actual governance than in throwing spanners in the works — or simply eliminating “the works,” as in the National Security Council office focused on global health and pandemics. This becomes a real problem in a crisis like the current one.

In the balance of Klein’s chapter he discusses structural factors that have kept the Democratic Party closer to accepted civic norms and established institutions (an argument borne out by Biden being their leading candidate for the nomination). Their language is restrained. But their point is clear — the two parties aren’t the same. To act as if they are is false." 

https://www.postalley.org/2020/04/05/the-fallacy-and-laziness-of-both-sides-ism/

If you try to argue his point you'll get "nope, see, he says it right here."

I get the science as evidence part.  That can't be stressed enough.  Too many republicans put their head in the sand or throw their hands up about it.  That is something I just don't get.

It's an op-ed, you can argue it all you want. 

I think the points are valid, but if you don't, feel free to push back. 

Meh, we won't agree anyways so it's pointless.  I said my reasoning already anyways.

If you think about it more if you don't like what a side stands for you have to pick one so you just go Conservative.  We are made to choose a side.  This is why Trump was elected in the first place.  This is why I'd love a third party system.

Can we bring back the Whigs? They were the Libertarians for their time.  I'm sure they did stupid shit back then too though.

Sure, the Know Nothings have already returned.

Merkin Baller

tempo_n_groove said:

Merkin Baller said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Merkin Baller said:

The Fallacy (and Laziness) of Both-Sides-ism

“Today’s Republican Party . . . is an insurgent outlier. It has become ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understandings of fact, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of it’s political opposition, all but declaring war on the government. The Democratic Party, while no paragon of civic virtue, is more ideologically centered and diverse, protective of the government’s role as it developed over the course of the last century, open to incremental changes in policy fashioned through bargaining with the Republicans and less disposed to or adept at take-no-prisoners conflict between the parties.

“This asymmetry between the parties, which journalists and scholars often brush aside or whitewash in a quest for ‘balance,’ constitutes a huge obstacle to effective governance.”

While there are individual exceptions, the Republicans as a political party have shown themselves less interested in actual governance than in throwing spanners in the works — or simply eliminating “the works,” as in the National Security Council office focused on global health and pandemics. This becomes a real problem in a crisis like the current one.

In the balance of Klein’s chapter he discusses structural factors that have kept the Democratic Party closer to accepted civic norms and established institutions (an argument borne out by Biden being their leading candidate for the nomination). Their language is restrained. But their point is clear — the two parties aren’t the same. To act as if they are is false." 

https://www.postalley.org/2020/04/05/the-fallacy-and-laziness-of-both-sides-ism/

If you try to argue his point you'll get "nope, see, he says it right here."

I get the science as evidence part.  That can't be stressed enough.  Too many republicans put their head in the sand or throw their hands up about it.  That is something I just don't get.

It's an op-ed, you can argue it all you want. 

I think the points are valid, but if you don't, feel free to push back. 

Meh, we won't agree anyways so it's pointless.  I said my reasoning already anyways.

If you think about it more if you don't like what a side stands for you have to pick one so you just go Conservative.  We are made to choose a side.  This is why Trump was elected in the first place.  This is why I'd love a third party system.

Can we bring back the Whigs? They were the Libertarians for their time.  I'm sure they did stupid shit back then too though.

I would love a 3rd party too, and for many years I voted for 3rd party candidates. That's back when I believed both sides were the same. 

But they aren't anymore, so I'm going with the side that isn't trying to overturn our democracy and run our government into the ground. 

tempo_n_groove

Halifax2TheMax said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Merkin Baller said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Merkin Baller said:

The Fallacy (and Laziness) of Both-Sides-ism

“Today’s Republican Party . . . is an insurgent outlier. It has become ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understandings of fact, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of it’s political opposition, all but declaring war on the government. The Democratic Party, while no paragon of civic virtue, is more ideologically centered and diverse, protective of the government’s role as it developed over the course of the last century, open to incremental changes in policy fashioned through bargaining with the Republicans and less disposed to or adept at take-no-prisoners conflict between the parties.

“This asymmetry between the parties, which journalists and scholars often brush aside or whitewash in a quest for ‘balance,’ constitutes a huge obstacle to effective governance.”

While there are individual exceptions, the Republicans as a political party have shown themselves less interested in actual governance than in throwing spanners in the works — or simply eliminating “the works,” as in the National Security Council office focused on global health and pandemics. This becomes a real problem in a crisis like the current one.

In the balance of Klein’s chapter he discusses structural factors that have kept the Democratic Party closer to accepted civic norms and established institutions (an argument borne out by Biden being their leading candidate for the nomination). Their language is restrained. But their point is clear — the two parties aren’t the same. To act as if they are is false." 

https://www.postalley.org/2020/04/05/the-fallacy-and-laziness-of-both-sides-ism/

If you try to argue his point you'll get "nope, see, he says it right here."

I get the science as evidence part.  That can't be stressed enough.  Too many republicans put their head in the sand or throw their hands up about it.  That is something I just don't get.

It's an op-ed, you can argue it all you want. 

I think the points are valid, but if you don't, feel free to push back. 

Meh, we won't agree anyways so it's pointless.  I said my reasoning already anyways.

If you think about it more if you don't like what a side stands for you have to pick one so you just go Conservative.  We are made to choose a side.  This is why Trump was elected in the first place.  This is why I'd love a third party system.

Can we bring back the Whigs? They were the Libertarians for their time.  I'm sure they did stupid shit back then too though.

Sure, the Know Nothings have already returned.

This was actually funny.  

The Juggler

That article is 100% on point. 

When maga's don't even consider people like Mitt Romney or Lynn Cheney to be real republicans anymore and when members of the republican party are being censured all across the country for having the balls to disagree with Donald Trump....well, that tells you all you need to know. These are not reasonable people. They are not the same kind of people who used to be considered far right just ten years ago. They're mostly nuts and they, at this point, are running the asylum now. There just is not an equivalent to them on the other side of the aisle. One party is a cult, the other party is still normal---whether you agree with their policies or not. 

So I can't help but tune out anyone who attempts a bothsides argument nowadays. It's not 15-20 years ago. Making that argument now is an indicator that you're either not paying close enough attention or are just ignorant to the very obvious decline of that political party. 

tempo_n_groove

The Juggler said:

That article is 100% on point. 

When maga's don't even consider people like Mitt Romney or Lynn Cheney to be real republicans anymore and when members of the republican party are being censured all across the country for having the balls to disagree with Donald Trump....well, that tells you all you need to know. These are not reasonable people. They are not the same kind of people who used to be considered far right just ten years ago. They're mostly nuts and they, at this point, are running the asylum now. There just is not an equivalent to them on the other side of the aisle. One party is a cult, the other party is still normal---whether you agree with their policies or not. 

So I can't help but tune out anyone who attempts a bothsides argument nowadays. It's not 15-20 years ago. Making that argument now is an indicator that you're either not paying close enough attention or are just ignorant to the very obvious decline of that political party. 

Isn't that pitting Maga against dems though?  I see Romney and Cheyney as exactly what the republican party should be voting for and standing behind.

The Juggler

tempo_n_groove said:

The Juggler said:

That article is 100% on point. 

When maga's don't even consider people like Mitt Romney or Lynn Cheney to be real republicans anymore and when members of the republican party are being censured all across the country for having the balls to disagree with Donald Trump....well, that tells you all you need to know. These are not reasonable people. They are not the same kind of people who used to be considered far right just ten years ago. They're mostly nuts and they, at this point, are running the asylum now. There just is not an equivalent to them on the other side of the aisle. One party is a cult, the other party is still normal---whether you agree with their policies or not. 

So I can't help but tune out anyone who attempts a bothsides argument nowadays. It's not 15-20 years ago. Making that argument now is an indicator that you're either not paying close enough attention or are just ignorant to the very obvious decline of that political party. 

Isn't that pitting Maga against dems though?  I see Romney and Cheyney as exactly what the republican party should be voting for and standing behind.

What do you mean? They are already against the dems.

That's my point regarding Romney and Cheyney.  The fact that they are considered outcasts in their party tells you that the majority of maga is completely bonkers. 

tempo_n_groove

The Juggler said:

tempo_n_groove said:

The Juggler said:

That article is 100% on point. 

When maga's don't even consider people like Mitt Romney or Lynn Cheney to be real republicans anymore and when members of the republican party are being censured all across the country for having the balls to disagree with Donald Trump....well, that tells you all you need to know. These are not reasonable people. They are not the same kind of people who used to be considered far right just ten years ago. They're mostly nuts and they, at this point, are running the asylum now. There just is not an equivalent to them on the other side of the aisle. One party is a cult, the other party is still normal---whether you agree with their policies or not. 

So I can't help but tune out anyone who attempts a bothsides argument nowadays. It's not 15-20 years ago. Making that argument now is an indicator that you're either not paying close enough attention or are just ignorant to the very obvious decline of that political party. 

Isn't that pitting Maga against dems though?  I see Romney and Cheyney as exactly what the republican party should be voting for and standing behind.

What do you mean? They are already against the dems.

That's my point regarding Romney and Cheyney.  The fact that they are considered outcasts in their party tells you that the majority of maga is completely bonkers. 

You get what I'm saying.

Maga against Dems is not the same as a normal Republican against dems.

Something I am curious about is if any dem or rep crosses the aisle on voting. I know for a while there were only a few outliers and everyone just fell in line.

The Juggler

tempo_n_groove said:

The Juggler said:

tempo_n_groove said:

The Juggler said:

That article is 100% on point. 

When maga's don't even consider people like Mitt Romney or Lynn Cheney to be real republicans anymore and when members of the republican party are being censured all across the country for having the balls to disagree with Donald Trump....well, that tells you all you need to know. These are not reasonable people. They are not the same kind of people who used to be considered far right just ten years ago. They're mostly nuts and they, at this point, are running the asylum now. There just is not an equivalent to them on the other side of the aisle. One party is a cult, the other party is still normal---whether you agree with their policies or not. 

So I can't help but tune out anyone who attempts a bothsides argument nowadays. It's not 15-20 years ago. Making that argument now is an indicator that you're either not paying close enough attention or are just ignorant to the very obvious decline of that political party. 

Isn't that pitting Maga against dems though?  I see Romney and Cheyney as exactly what the republican party should be voting for and standing behind.

What do you mean? They are already against the dems.

That's my point regarding Romney and Cheyney.  The fact that they are considered outcasts in their party tells you that the majority of maga is completely bonkers. 

You get what I'm saying.

Maga against Dems is not the same as a normal Republican against dems.

Right. But the issue nowadays is that normal Republicans are few and far between and are ostracized by their own party. 

tempo_n_groove

The Juggler said:

tempo_n_groove said:

The Juggler said:

tempo_n_groove said:

The Juggler said:

That article is 100% on point. 

When maga's don't even consider people like Mitt Romney or Lynn Cheney to be real republicans anymore and when members of the republican party are being censured all across the country for having the balls to disagree with Donald Trump....well, that tells you all you need to know. These are not reasonable people. They are not the same kind of people who used to be considered far right just ten years ago. They're mostly nuts and they, at this point, are running the asylum now. There just is not an equivalent to them on the other side of the aisle. One party is a cult, the other party is still normal---whether you agree with their policies or not. 

So I can't help but tune out anyone who attempts a bothsides argument nowadays. It's not 15-20 years ago. Making that argument now is an indicator that you're either not paying close enough attention or are just ignorant to the very obvious decline of that political party. 

Isn't that pitting Maga against dems though?  I see Romney and Cheyney as exactly what the republican party should be voting for and standing behind.

What do you mean? They are already against the dems.

That's my point regarding Romney and Cheyney.  The fact that they are considered outcasts in their party tells you that the majority of maga is completely bonkers. 

You get what I'm saying.

Maga against Dems is not the same as a normal Republican against dems.

Right. But the issue nowadays is that normal Republicans are few and far between and are ostracized by their own party. 

You know what is wild?  I remember discussing this and saying no way they turn that way.

brianlux

tempo_n_groove said:

brianlux said:

I still have some issues with both sides but you won't hear me say that about much these days.  The Biden administration has done a lot of good work on  a number of fronts.  My biggest complaint is that he and the current admin are weaker on environment that I would like to see but then, who isn't? LOL.

The right, on the other hand, have stood by Trump (mostly T, but also other unsavory characters like DeSantis) despite all all of his un-redeemable and despicable characteristics to the point of tipping the scale to where there is little reason (I believe) to talk about "both sides" as if they are comparable.

I see the dismissal of the "both sides" argument as another wedge to divide us all.  It's literally right in front of our faces that both sides could actually agree upon something and most will have none of it.

There are, without a doubt, some Republicans who share similar values to many Democrats (including me).  Many of those Republicans are part of the Lincoln Project group.  For the most part, I have no major issues with those folks and we agree on several counts, but the Lincoln Project and Republicans like them are a splinter group.  The Republican party as a whole has chosen to adopt- as the article Merkin Baller posted points out- chosen to become "an insurgent outlier" and "has become ideologically extreme".  There's just nothing there and the vast majority of Democrats like me (and other people, I should point out) to agree on.

Go Beavers

tempo_n_groove said:

Merkin Baller said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Merkin Baller said:

The Fallacy (and Laziness) of Both-Sides-ism

“Today’s Republican Party . . . is an insurgent outlier. It has become ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understandings of fact, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of it’s political opposition, all but declaring war on the government. The Democratic Party, while no paragon of civic virtue, is more ideologically centered and diverse, protective of the government’s role as it developed over the course of the last century, open to incremental changes in policy fashioned through bargaining with the Republicans and less disposed to or adept at take-no-prisoners conflict between the parties.

“This asymmetry between the parties, which journalists and scholars often brush aside or whitewash in a quest for ‘balance,’ constitutes a huge obstacle to effective governance.”

While there are individual exceptions, the Republicans as a political party have shown themselves less interested in actual governance than in throwing spanners in the works — or simply eliminating “the works,” as in the National Security Council office focused on global health and pandemics. This becomes a real problem in a crisis like the current one.

In the balance of Klein’s chapter he discusses structural factors that have kept the Democratic Party closer to accepted civic norms and established institutions (an argument borne out by Biden being their leading candidate for the nomination). Their language is restrained. But their point is clear — the two parties aren’t the same. To act as if they are is false." 

https://www.postalley.org/2020/04/05/the-fallacy-and-laziness-of-both-sides-ism/

If you try to argue his point you'll get "nope, see, he says it right here."

I get the science as evidence part.  That can't be stressed enough.  Too many republicans put their head in the sand or throw their hands up about it.  That is something I just don't get.

It's an op-ed, you can argue it all you want. 

I think the points are valid, but if you don't, feel free to push back. 

Meh, we won't agree anyways so it's pointless.  I said my reasoning already anyways.

If you think about it more if you don't like what a side stands for you have to pick one so you just go Conservative.  We are made to choose a side.  This is why Trump was elected in the first place.  This is why I'd love a third party system.

Can we bring back the Whigs? They were the Libertarians for their time.  I'm sure they did stupid shit back then too though.

I think third party people can be just as bad with the bothsideism. They end up equating a lesser offense and a greater offense, which just enables the greater offender. In their minds, they’re ethically and morally superior to the two major parties, but this isn’t based on any policy around regulation, it’s just ideologically based on thinking they’re better. 

tempo_n_groove

Go Beavers said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Merkin Baller said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Merkin Baller said:

The Fallacy (and Laziness) of Both-Sides-ism

“Today’s Republican Party . . . is an insurgent outlier. It has become ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understandings of fact, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of it’s political opposition, all but declaring war on the government. The Democratic Party, while no paragon of civic virtue, is more ideologically centered and diverse, protective of the government’s role as it developed over the course of the last century, open to incremental changes in policy fashioned through bargaining with the Republicans and less disposed to or adept at take-no-prisoners conflict between the parties.

“This asymmetry between the parties, which journalists and scholars often brush aside or whitewash in a quest for ‘balance,’ constitutes a huge obstacle to effective governance.”

While there are individual exceptions, the Republicans as a political party have shown themselves less interested in actual governance than in throwing spanners in the works — or simply eliminating “the works,” as in the National Security Council office focused on global health and pandemics. This becomes a real problem in a crisis like the current one.

In the balance of Klein’s chapter he discusses structural factors that have kept the Democratic Party closer to accepted civic norms and established institutions (an argument borne out by Biden being their leading candidate for the nomination). Their language is restrained. But their point is clear — the two parties aren’t the same. To act as if they are is false." 

https://www.postalley.org/2020/04/05/the-fallacy-and-laziness-of-both-sides-ism/

If you try to argue his point you'll get "nope, see, he says it right here."

I get the science as evidence part.  That can't be stressed enough.  Too many republicans put their head in the sand or throw their hands up about it.  That is something I just don't get.

It's an op-ed, you can argue it all you want. 

I think the points are valid, but if you don't, feel free to push back. 

Meh, we won't agree anyways so it's pointless.  I said my reasoning already anyways.

If you think about it more if you don't like what a side stands for you have to pick one so you just go Conservative.  We are made to choose a side.  This is why Trump was elected in the first place.  This is why I'd love a third party system.

Can we bring back the Whigs? They were the Libertarians for their time.  I'm sure they did stupid shit back then too though.

I think third party people can be just as bad with the bothsideism. They end up equating a lesser offense and a greater offense, which just enables the greater offender. In their minds, they’re ethically and morally superior to the two major parties, but this isn’t based on any policy around regulation, it’s just ideologically based on thinking they’re better. 

I just want a third party to have values from both sides of the aisle.  It's one way the whole party or nothing.  I'd like to see some flex.

The Juggler

I used to want a third party. Way too dangerous now with how extreme maga is though. Cannot risk tilting another election to them. 

brianlux

The Juggler said:

I used to want a third party. Way too dangerous now with how extreme maga is though. Cannot risk tilting another election to them. 

Yes, at this point I would have to agree.  MAGA is a must NOT do again!

Lerxst1992

Go Beavers said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Merkin Baller said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Merkin Baller said:

The Fallacy (and Laziness) of Both-Sides-ism

“Today’s Republican Party . . . is an insurgent outlier. It has become ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understandings of fact, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of it’s political opposition, all but declaring war on the government. The Democratic Party, while no paragon of civic virtue, is more ideologically centered and diverse, protective of the government’s role as it developed over the course of the last century, open to incremental changes in policy fashioned through bargaining with the Republicans and less disposed to or adept at take-no-prisoners conflict between the parties.

“This asymmetry between the parties, which journalists and scholars often brush aside or whitewash in a quest for ‘balance,’ constitutes a huge obstacle to effective governance.”

While there are individual exceptions, the Republicans as a political party have shown themselves less interested in actual governance than in throwing spanners in the works — or simply eliminating “the works,” as in the National Security Council office focused on global health and pandemics. This becomes a real problem in a crisis like the current one.

In the balance of Klein’s chapter he discusses structural factors that have kept the Democratic Party closer to accepted civic norms and established institutions (an argument borne out by Biden being their leading candidate for the nomination). Their language is restrained. But their point is clear — the two parties aren’t the same. To act as if they are is false." 

https://www.postalley.org/2020/04/05/the-fallacy-and-laziness-of-both-sides-ism/

If you try to argue his point you'll get "nope, see, he says it right here."

I get the science as evidence part.  That can't be stressed enough.  Too many republicans put their head in the sand or throw their hands up about it.  That is something I just don't get.

It's an op-ed, you can argue it all you want. 

I think the points are valid, but if you don't, feel free to push back. 

Meh, we won't agree anyways so it's pointless.  I said my reasoning already anyways.

If you think about it more if you don't like what a side stands for you have to pick one so you just go Conservative.  We are made to choose a side.  This is why Trump was elected in the first place.  This is why I'd love a third party system.

Can we bring back the Whigs? They were the Libertarians for their time.  I'm sure they did stupid shit back then too though.

I think third party people can be just as bad with the bothsideism. They end up equating a lesser offense and a greater offense, which just enables the greater offender. In their minds, they’re ethically and morally superior to the two major parties, but this isn’t based on any policy around regulation, it’s just ideologically based on thinking they’re better. 

Well conservatives do that also. Someone from work, immigrant from the Caribbean is a solid trump voter. A little shocking, but not when considering her hubby is retired NYPD. Almost all of them vote R now, because of Deblaze dismantling stop and frisk.
 
I said to her you realize those DC cops are dead solely because of trump so why would the police continue to support him? She barely knew what I was talking about. They are in a different bubble,and are surrounded by like minded people. No way getting around confirmation bias 
.