• Xer0@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Nothing wrong with accepting that both sides of anything have good and bad shit going on. I couldn’t imagine just blindly following one side 100% even when they can also do questionable stuff.

          • samus12345@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Sure, but the problem is that rather than arguing the finer points of how to combat climate change, for example, we have to argue about whether truth is truth.

        • WhiteHawk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes, because you’re so blinded by your indoctrination that you can’t accept the flaws of “your” side.

          • ImFresh3x@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            “Climate change exists”

            “Religion shouldn’t allow governments to prevent basic healthcare needs”

            “January 6 was a failed insurrection”

            These are the things that the right calls indoctrination.

            And the hard left calls not important enough to bother voting.

    • SuperSaiyanSwag@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      Maybe I’m too naive, but I didn’t think they were referring to just politics. They were just referring to two people arguing.

      • samus12345@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You know, I think you’re right. I’m so used to the phrase “both sides” meaning a specific thing it didn’t register as anything else. If it had been phrased “both sides of an argument” I would have understood.

      • bartolomeo@suppo.fi
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Does it normally refer to politics? Maybe for Americans, and they are responsible for a good deal of the English language content online. Right, and the 2 party system…

        I’m with you, though, both sides means both sides of an argument. I think the news had something on that a while back- for every climate scientist they interviewed, they had to also interview a climate denier to present a “fair and balanced” view XD

  • SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    1 year ago

    Why are y’all in the comments trying to act like one or another universalist position has to fit like a sock to all situations? There are debates where one side is blatantly wrong and the other is blatantly correct, debates where one side is wrong and the other has some points right, debates where both sides have some points right, debates where both sides would do well to return to school and debates where no side can be objetively correct because they’re discussing something intrinsically subjective. The “enlightened centrist” meme is useful to mock the stupid position that “the truth is always in the middle”, but if you think you’re always going to find someone in any debate who has the right answer, you’re going to find yourself siding with stupid shit all the time.

  • paddirn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    “Understanding is a three-edged sword. Your side, their side, and the truth.”

  • neptune@dmv.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    1 year ago

    Learn about one religion and you may become faithful. Learn about many and you may become an atheist.

    There’s some truth and some idiocy behind this meme. Just because, for example, the US political system tends toward a two party system, does not mean you can always or always not find some amount of truth or good ideas based on what two parties tell you. In fact, the framing is irrelevant toward truth, and is even it’s own type of bias. There are certainly some third rails neither side of a debate will touch, or some things both find the need to lie about. But in some cases someone is sort of right about something and sometimes people are just wrong.

    • EatYouWell@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Except the right’s platform no longer has any aspect of it that’s correct. They abandoned the conservative platform ages ago and went full fascist.

      • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Be careful careful about arguing that on lemmy.world. I argued for a bit with a “both sides are bad”, eventually called them out for being a Putin puppet, and got my post deleted by a Lemmy.world mod.

      • bstix@feddit.dk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        When Orion aligns with cup noodle. Ramen, my brother. May Prince Phillip have mercy on your Chūnjié and bless your virgins in Ragnarok.

    • Aabbcc@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Monke brain see “both sides”

      Neuron fire

      CENTRIST DETECTED

      no further thought needed

  • tygerprints@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Both sides can be misinformed but, it doesn’t mean you need to react negatively to someone else’s viewpoint. If you disagree there’s nothing wrong with saying “I disagree because I think that…” or “I’ve read that…” and you don’t have to call the other person a nasty derogatory name.

      • tygerprints@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Actually I wrote that because I am not new to this stuff at all. Just kind of fed up with always getting called names just because sometimes I post things that arent the most popular view or are different ways of looking at things. I’m OK with people saying “I don’t agree” if they can explain why without also adding “you idiot” or “you fucking idiot” onto the end. I try to be civil, but am always surprised how people respond with uncalled for name calling.

        • bartolomeo@suppo.fi
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You’re right. There is zero benefit to being an asshole, especially for the person being an asshole. Ego makes it tempting though.

          • tygerprints@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I can see where it’s not just tempting but seems necessary sometimes, but all you’re gonna do is bait the person into a useless bout of name calling back and forth.

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you’ve previously identified one side as consisting of pathological liars, it’s best to ignore whatever they say because the more you hear from them, the more likely you are to accidently believe one of their lies. It takes a lot of vigilance to listen to a bunch of plausibly-true statements without misremembering some of them as being true.

      • hakunawazo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        We automatically choose our friends based on similar taste, opinions and humour so it’s not surprising that these things match up.

      • tygerprints@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well I think you’re right, but I hope people have more brains to than to simply go along with what their friends think. I’m very anti-religious, but have close friends who are deeply religious. We just stay off the topic. I think people choose to hang with others who think the way they do most of the time. That doesn’t prove anybody right, it just proves we like to congregate with those whose opinions are the same as ours.

          • tygerprints@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s true where I live in mormon country, USA. People are told what to think by the church, and they also are instructed who to vote for by the church. The Mormons often say, " my church does my thinking for me." I guess it relieves people of the responsibility of having to make choices for themselves. That to me is much bleaker than truth being obtained from weirdos.

            Which I think it correct. It takes a “weirdo” to be either crazy or brave enough to say anything that goes against the popular viewpoint. Most people can handle almost anything better than they can handle being unpopular or called weird.

              • urshanabi [he/they]@lemmygrad.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Fair enough, apologies for the vagueness.

                I was referring to the first two sentences of your third paragraph. Relativism would look like a kind of correspondence theory of truth which is dependent on where you are geographically and who you interact with socially. Rather than something being true because it corresponds or appears (or is convenient I suppose) to be true as it relates to material phenomena; what is taken as or considered to be true is wholly dependent on what a group one is part of might think. This is relativism as it is 1. not contingent on the natural world, as in the empirical world, so basically stuff we get when we interact with our senses. It’s a bit problematic because one can believe whatever one wishes, this is clearly not a material outlook and can be presumed to bring erroneous thinking or erroneous conclusions somewhere along the line. Any kinds of fantastical thinking can enter the picture, it’s not problematic in itself, but you’ll see most philosophers shy away from it because there are all sorts of problems that come up. Part of the problem people have with postmodernist philosophy is related to this, I’ll leave the explanation out for now, though I recognize it is a lofty claim.

                For 2. solipsism is more or less believing that you are the authority, you can’t be certain others really exist or are equivalent in their capacity as a conscious being as you are. People tend to say, “I can only really know that I exist” and point at Descartes and his maxim Cogito ergo sum, I think therefore I am which I think is a weird perversion. At any rate, if one takes what one feels or believes or wants to be true, to be true, and solely holds their conception as the only one which matters insofar as it lines up with what they believe, there are similar erroneous conclusions which can arise.

                The link then between 1. and 2. is everything in the world is interpreted in a highly perspectival way in a way which must relate to you. One places themselves at the centre of the universe, thinks their thoughts are actually the way the world works as opposed to convenient heuristics or works-in-progress. An intrasocial network of information, i.e. one’s friends or group, can be the basis for such relativistic thinking, to the exclusion of others which is sorta where you see the tribalism part as well.

                Hope some of that made sense, let me know if it didn’t I’m a bit drowsy from my night medicine, I tried my best to be coherent. Maybe other comrades can chime in and correct me wherever I may have said something wrong or unclear.

  • Aabbcc@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yup my current favorite combo is hexbear and the neolibs at /r/Destiny. Completely ideologically opposed on nearly all issues. I usually side more with the hexbear crowd but they also have their own bubble thing going on