This is just “both sides are equally wrong/bad.”
Idk about equally, but often enough, both sides are indeed wrong.
“Enlightened centrists”. I make fun of you people constantly.
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.
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.
There are leftists that get things wrong
It makes you look stupid tho
Yes, because you’re so blinded by your indoctrination that you can’t accept the flaws of “your” side.
“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.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here
deleted by creator
Maybe I’m too naive, but I didn’t think they were referring to just politics. They were just referring to two people arguing.
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.
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
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.
Yes! Can we pin this somewhere for new Lemmy users to read? I’m so over the right/wrong ONLY attitudes
It would be better if we taught people to be critical thinkers
deleted by creator
Differing opinions is not the same thing as misinformation.
“Understanding is a three-edged sword. Your side, their side, and the truth.”
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?
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.
Yeah I know, I tried (and failed?) to be funny
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.
You succeeded. Your audience failed to have a sense of humor.
My side is that many great doctors are autistic, therefore autism causes vaccines.
Nice
Plot twist: Autism is causing vaccines /s
Not even that far fetched. A lot of inventors are thought to have been autistic.
There’s an xkcd about precisely that observation.
Just to be safe, I’m going to assume cancer causes mobile phones.
If you spend 10 years focused on cracking a tough riddle then you aren’t like most people.
Indeed.
Or causality is an imperfect representation of reality.
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.
Understanding sounds a little more like an M1917 trench knife with its triangular stiletto blade.
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.
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.
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.
To say nothing of what the Republicans are up to.
Not me. I learned about all of them and have accepted them all. It’s exhausting.
When Orion aligns with cup noodle. Ramen, my brother. May Prince Phillip have mercy on your Chūnjié and bless your virgins in Ragnarok.
Or a syncretist.
Or an independent researcher.
Because there’s supposedly more to this than old secondhand stories.
BuT bOtH sIdEs !!!1
Monke brain see “both sides”
Neuron fire
CENTRIST DETECTED
no further thought needed
Can’t you just live normally in a filter bubble like the rest of us?
both sides
wtf did u just say to me u lil bishh
bOtH siDeS
Removed by mod
You‘re new here, right? Keep that positive attitude as long as you can.
Removed by mod
You’re right. There is zero benefit to being an asshole, especially for the person being an asshole. Ego makes it tempting though.
Removed by mod
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.
99% of us just think whatever our friends think. Is that an argument for or against what we’re thinking?
We automatically choose our friends based on similar taste, opinions and humour so it’s not surprising that these things match up.
Thanks for your analysis doctor. But what about the question?
Removed by mod
I think it might speak against the idea. Because there is a strong probability that it is chosen, not because evidence/logic/etc leads to it, but because it is popular with one’s friends. Not saying it’s necessarily so, but there’s a strong probability.
(Which would lead to “truth can only be gotten from antisocial weirdos”. Which is kinda bleak I guess.)
But yes. I think that the 99% of people get their whole reality from consensus. No actual independent thinking except in the details. And there is also a vast hostility to the strange there. Maybe that’s “tribalism”.
Removed by mod
It’s funny. People I know who are religious. They may have a head full of scripture but dogmatism isn’t as ubiquitous as you might think. And often behind that scriptural thinking is a proper humility. An understanding that these eyes and this brain are just a speck. A dot of illumination in a vast night. Fine modern scientific and/or theological theories notwithstanding.
The popular arrogance, otoh, is childish. Smug certainty that you have truth in hand. I find that hard to swallow.
Drugs and meditation are the best cure for it as far as I can tell.
I like meditation a lot.
Another term for what you are describing which is philosophically untenable is relativism or if you are too far gone possible solipsism.
I described like 5 things. Can you be more specific?
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.
Why limit yourself to two?
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
Fires up the grill
