• Xer0@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          11 months 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
            ·
            11 months 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
          ·
          11 months 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
            11 months 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
      11
      ·
      11 months 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
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months 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
        ·
        11 months 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

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

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

    • Cano@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      44
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      11 months ago

      My side is that vaccines do NOT cause autism.

      Their side is that vaccines DO cause autism.

      So the truth is that vaccines cause autism sometimes?

      • HikingVet@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        No, Autism isn’t caused by vaccines but the risk of vaccines for everyone is not zero. It’s just the amount of people affected are in the .00X% or .000X% range.

          • BlanketsWithSmallpox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            11 months ago

            No, you had it just fine. You’ll find that an abnormally large amount of ND people hang out on Lemmy though. So many angry comments from people who used to reddit but they’re just angrily agreeing with you the whole time. Like… K lol.

      • Johanno@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        No the truth is scientifically proven that they don’t(at least those that are certified in the EU)

        Your side may overlap with the truth.

  • SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    11 months 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.

  • neptune@dmv.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    11 months 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
      ·
      11 months 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
        ·
        11 months 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
        ·
        11 months 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
      ·
      11 months 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
    ·
    11 months 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
        ·
        11 months 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
          ·
          11 months 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
            ·
            11 months 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
      ·
      11 months 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.

  • Aabbcc@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    11 months 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