Discussion
@tofugolem
I think you misses my point. Try reading the whole post, and thinking about it, rather than just smashing out a snarky, out-of-context reply to the first sentence. Even a Trained #MOLE can do better than that.
Muted for a week.
EDIT: unmuted, please see subsequent post 🙏
@tofugolem
I think you misses my point. Try reading the whole post, and thinking about it, rather than just smashing out a snarky, out-of-context reply to the first sentence. Even a Trained #MOLE can do better than that.
Muted for a week.
EDIT: unmuted, please see subsequent post 🙏
Oh lordy, it struck me while I was having a shower (#ShowerThoughts) that I may have gone off half-cocked, in exactly the way I was accusing @tofugolem of doing *in that very post*. Oh the horrifying irony 😳
If this is indeed a case of heated agreement, my humblest apologies.
The problem with this argument is that if one side is demonstrably worse, then all you've done is make excuses for the side that is worse by using this argument framing.
America is where it is precisely because of decades of people using this framing to make the Republicans seem less bad no matter how awful they get.
And you got that my post was criticising this, right? Pointing out that when hyperpartisanship is substituted for analysis, excuses can be made for the most ambiguously irredeemable political actor, if it seems like there's a chance he'll change teams (again).
Changing "but both sides" to "hyperpartisanship" doesn't fundamentally change the argument I was criticizing. Compromising with fascists doesn't make you seem more reasonable. Calling opponents of fascism "hyperpartisan" doesn't make you seem more reasonable. It just leaves us with the impression that you want to align yourself with the fascists.
A space for Bonfire maintainers and contributors to communicate
