When you have one party making election denialism a core of their belief system while on the other side you have a few random people making claims on social media, it is absurd to claim that “both sides … seem to be doing it right now”.
But that’s both sides doing it. You just described people from both sides doing it…
No, both sides have not made denialism central to their party platform. No, the Democrats did not have any cabinet nominees who refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of the last election. No, both sides did not storm the Capitol building in an attempt to prevent the certification of the election.
Right, and I never claimed so.
No, both sides are not doing it.
I’m sorry but they are. What you have a problem is understanding the difference (not even nuance) of “both sides are doing it” and “both sides are doing it to the same degree/same level/whatever”. It’s two very different things.
Both sides would refer to equivalent people doing it, so actual political members of the party since that’s where the Republicans set the bar, not just some random public citizens on the internet.
Both sides would refer to equivalent people doing it
No it doesn’t. Both sides are doing X can just mean literally that, both sides are doing X. You’re confusing that with “both siding”, where you are saying that with the intention to imply that they’re somehow equivalent or equal. And that’s not what I’m doing, as you can probably tell by now.
Just recognizing that it’s happening on both sides doesn’t mean or even imply you think it’s happening to the same degree.
It is the simple reduction of two completely disproportionate responses to the phrase “both sides do it”.
The same logic keeps being applied to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Both sides are fighting, they say, so both sides share equal responsibility for the destruction and for making peace.
I believe you when you say it isn’t your intent to do so, but in that case you are doing so obliviously. You don’t even know who the commenter is, so it’s pure assumption on your part that they’re even left wing to begin with.
Both siding requires the intent to equate the two to make one side seem less bad. I’m not doing that, I’m just recognizing the fact both sides are, objectively, doing it. You are reading into that, thinking I’m equating things. And that’s just not true.
You don’t even know who the commenter is, so it’s pure assumption on your part that they’re even left wing to begin with.
If you mean @barry_aptt then I’m happy to report that I did check their profile before making my original comment.
Are you claiming I’m both-siding because someone might read into it something that was never there? Amazing. This is like calling something totally innocent “dogswhistling” because you misunderstood the meaning. The intent is like the thing, without it it’s just not both-siding or dogwhistling.
Never thought I’d see someone pronouncing the death of the author about Lemmy comments lol.
If you think a bit harder about your reference you might remember that Barthes’ essay argues against relying on the intent of the original author. This isn’t the coup de grace you think it is.
And again, this has nothing to do with you. I’m not claiming any specific intent behind your statements. I am pointing out the demonstrable fact that your argument not only can be misinterpreted, but that it is more likely to be interpreted as drawing equivalence, given how that same position has been commonly used.
I’m not claiming any specific intent behind your statements.
It’s just that both-siding requires intent. You wouldn’t be both-sideing without it, it would just be a statement mentioning both sides.
I’m sorry but this has gone to a stupid degree. You misunderstood what I said as both-siding, I explained multiple times it wasn’t that, honestly time to give this a rest.
If you mean @barry_aptt then I’m happy to report that I did check their profile before making my original comment.
This is exactly what I’m talking about. You have no idea who that person is, what correlation their posting has to their political position, or in fact whether they exist at all. And you’re drawing equivalence between that post and a recorded statement by the president.
I’m sure it’s just a fake account someone crafted for years to mislead me into thinking someone on the Democratic side might be dubious about the elections results.
But that’s both sides doing it. You just described people from both sides doing it…
Right, and I never claimed so.
I’m sorry but they are. What you have a problem is understanding the difference (not even nuance) of “both sides are doing it” and “both sides are doing it to the same degree/same level/whatever”. It’s two very different things.
Both sides would refer to equivalent people doing it, so actual political members of the party since that’s where the Republicans set the bar, not just some random public citizens on the internet.
No it doesn’t. Both sides are doing X can just mean literally that, both sides are doing X. You’re confusing that with “both siding”, where you are saying that with the intention to imply that they’re somehow equivalent or equal. And that’s not what I’m doing, as you can probably tell by now.
Just recognizing that it’s happening on both sides doesn’t mean or even imply you think it’s happening to the same degree.
What do you think “both siding” entails?
It is the simple reduction of two completely disproportionate responses to the phrase “both sides do it”.
The same logic keeps being applied to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Both sides are fighting, they say, so both sides share equal responsibility for the destruction and for making peace.
I believe you when you say it isn’t your intent to do so, but in that case you are doing so obliviously. You don’t even know who the commenter is, so it’s pure assumption on your part that they’re even left wing to begin with.
Both siding requires the intent to equate the two to make one side seem less bad. I’m not doing that, I’m just recognizing the fact both sides are, objectively, doing it. You are reading into that, thinking I’m equating things. And that’s just not true.
If you mean @barry_aptt then I’m happy to report that I did check their profile before making my original comment.
In that case you are naively both-siding this issue.
To help clarify: if somebody was to read your first comment, are they likely to infer that the two sides are equivalent?
Are you claiming I’m both-siding because someone might read into it something that was never there? Amazing. This is like calling something totally innocent “dogswhistling” because you misunderstood the meaning. The intent is like the thing, without it it’s just not both-siding or dogwhistling.
Never thought I’d see someone pronouncing the death of the author about Lemmy comments lol.
If you think a bit harder about your reference you might remember that Barthes’ essay argues against relying on the intent of the original author. This isn’t the coup de grace you think it is.
And again, this has nothing to do with you. I’m not claiming any specific intent behind your statements. I am pointing out the demonstrable fact that your argument not only can be misinterpreted, but that it is more likely to be interpreted as drawing equivalence, given how that same position has been commonly used.
I just thought it was funny.
It’s just that both-siding requires intent. You wouldn’t be both-sideing without it, it would just be a statement mentioning both sides.
I’m sorry but this has gone to a stupid degree. You misunderstood what I said as both-siding, I explained multiple times it wasn’t that, honestly time to give this a rest.
This is exactly what I’m talking about. You have no idea who that person is, what correlation their posting has to their political position, or in fact whether they exist at all. And you’re drawing equivalence between that post and a recorded statement by the president.
>Account constantly posts anti-Trump, anti-Republican, pro-Democratic party messages
>“You have no idea what correlation their posting has to their political position”
Right right.
If I said both cats and dogs animals, would you get upset over me drawing equivalence between cats and dogs? Give me a break.
You can’t just ignore parts of the argument to which you have no answer.
You don’t know who that person is or whether they even exist. It is beyond spurious to assign their statements to any other entity.
I’m sure it’s just a fake account someone crafted for years to mislead me into thinking someone on the Democratic side might be dubious about the elections results.