• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

'Both sides are the same' rhetoric...'a potential disaster for democracy'?

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Foreign policy offers one major difference....
Trump is more willing to start a needless war,
based in his aborted launch of one on Iran.
Biden appears less of a vengeful hothead.
Outside of some inflation (which was inevitable from pumping cash out during the pandemic, but is improving), my view is that Biden's handling of the economy is in fact working. As is the vast majority of Americans, which sort of proves the point, and at better wages, too. You can see it in the rise in the stock markets, which only dip when inflation numbers don't quite meet expectations each quarter.

I will say this -- I am far more keen on Biden's desire to see "the rich pay their fair share" than I am in seeing them given more tax breaks so they can buy another yacht in another ocean. But then, I am a believer in progressive taxation -- not extreme progressive, but progressive enough.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
In a society which has valued free speech, freedom of expression, and an open marketplace of ideas, then ideas can be fought with other ideas. What good does it to do to get angry about it? Logic and reason can be more effective weapons than anger. In my view, the anger and emotionalism can be a greater threat to democracy, because it's a sign that people are regressing and are no longer mature enough for an open marketplace of ideas.

Of course, there are ways of dealing with unsavory ideas or assertions of false equivalence, but that also requires a bit of work and a lot of patience, which too many people don't have anymore. All they can do is get more angry or make more snarky remarks or come back with more of the same. At the very least, people should be able to EXPLAIN their position with more lucidity and elaboration than simple soundbites and throwaway one-liners.
Surely X is only capable of communicating throwaway one-liners?
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
There are other forums and venues available, but maybe this points up part of the problem.
I agree with you there. The nature of much social media communication is extremely brief, so people are becoming too impatient to read a reasoned case. All you can do is get your sound-bite across.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Outside of some inflation (which was inevitable from pumping cash out during the pandemic, but is improving), my view is that Biden's handling of the economy is in fact working.
He doesn't "handle" the economy.
No President does.
But they have some influence.
If a claim is made that a Prez is responsible for this or
that economic result, it requires reasoning & evidence.
As is the vast majority of Americans, which sort of proves the point, and at better wages, too. You can see it in the rise in the stock markets, which only dip when inflation numbers don't quite meet expectations each quarter.

I will say this -- I am far more keen on Biden's desire to see "the rich pay their fair share" than I am in seeing them given more tax breaks so they can buy another yacht in another ocean. But then, I am a believer in progressive taxation -- not extreme progressive, but progressive enough.
Another problem is that each will fib about the
state of the economy. Magas I know believe
their Dear Leader that the economy is terrible
(because of Biden). It ain't.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Outside of some inflation (which was inevitable from pumping cash out during the pandemic, but is improving), my view is that Biden's handling of the economy is in fact working. As is the vast majority of Americans, which sort of proves the point, and at better wages, too. You can see it in the rise in the stock markets, which only dip when inflation numbers don't quite meet expectations each quarter.

I will say this -- I am far more keen on Biden's desire to see "the rich pay their fair share" than I am in seeing them given more tax breaks so they can buy another yacht in another ocean. But then, I am a believer in progressive taxation -- not extreme progressive, but progressive enough.

One can look at the economy either as a short-term phenomenon or in the long term. The state of the economy is also manifested in various quality of life issues which have fallen by the wayside - much of which was exacerbated by the pandemic, though the roots of our decline go back much further.

Where we once had vibrant industries is now called the "rust belt." Where we once had an educational system which was the envy of the world, we now have crumbling schools which have fallen woefully behind the rest of the industrialized world. People who once embraced peace and love during the 1960s became money-grubbing warmongers by the 1990s, and they're still that today. What was once the party of working people has become the party of Wall Street and Hollywood celebrities. Cities have fallen into decline, streets and infrastructure in disrepair, many school buildings in poor condition. There was once a time when a single income could support a family of four relatively comfortably - even for blue-collar, working class people. Now, families are struggling and scraping to get by even when they have two incomes.

I do agree with Biden's desire to see "the rich pay their fair share." Of course, Democrats have been saying stuff like that for a long time now, making one wonder just when they're going to actually get around to doing it. Inflation can be easily dealt with by the stroke of a pen. All Biden has to do is bring back FDR's Office of Price Administration, and problem solved. Easy peasy. Why is Biden mucking with his laissez-faire, "let the free market handle it" BS? That's what the Republicans want, but Democrats should want something different. Price controls, rent controls, socialized medicine - why don't we have these things? Is it because Democrats agree with the Republicans on matters like this? Aren't they capable of stepping out from among them and setting themselves apart? And they have the audacity to complain when some people view them as "the same"?
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
In a society which has valued free speech, freedom of expression, and an open marketplace of ideas, then ideas can be fought with other ideas. What good does it to do to get angry about it? Logic and reason can be more effective weapons than anger. In my view, the anger and emotionalism can be a greater threat to democracy, because it's a sign that people are regressing and are no longer mature enough for an open marketplace of ideas.

Of course, there are ways of dealing with unsavory ideas or assertions of false equivalence, but that also requires a bit of work and a lot of patience, which too many people don't have anymore. All they can do is get more angry or make more snarky remarks or come back with more of the same. At the very least, people should be able to EXPLAIN their position with more lucidity and elaboration than simple soundbites and throwaway one-liners.
I think, in fact, that it's not only work and patience that people don't have. I think, from having listened to so many of them, that a lot of voters just really don't understand the complexities of
One can look at the economy either as a short-term phenomenon or in the long term. The state of the economy is also manifested in various quality of life issues which have fallen by the wayside - much of which was exacerbated by the pandemic, though the roots of our decline go back much further.

Where we once had vibrant industries is now called the "rust belt." Where we once had an educational system which was the envy of the world, we now have crumbling schools which have fallen woefully behind the rest of the industrialized world. People who once embraced peace and love during the 1960s became money-grubbing warmongers by the 1990s, and they're still that today. What was once the party of working people has become the party of Wall Street and Hollywood celebrities. Cities have fallen into decline, streets and infrastructure in disrepair, many school buildings in poor condition. There was once a time when a single income could support a family of four relatively comfortably - even for blue-collar, working class people. Now, families are struggling and scraping to get by even when they have two incomes.

I do agree with Biden's desire to see "the rich pay their fair share." Of course, Democrats have been saying stuff like that for a long time now, making one wonder just when they're going to actually get around to doing it. Inflation can be easily dealt with by the stroke of a pen. All Biden has to do is bring back FDR's Office of Price Administration, and problem solved. Easy peasy. Why is Biden mucking with his laissez-faire, "let the free market handle it" BS? That's what the Republicans want, but Democrats should want something different. Price controls, rent controls, socialized medicine - why don't we have these things? Is it because Democrats agree with the Republicans on matters like this? Aren't they capable of stepping out from among them and setting themselves apart? And they have the audacity to complain when some people view them as "the same"?
But hasn't this administration passed (and is now implementing) a huge infrastructure program? Is not this administration working at bringing back chip manufacturing to the U.S.?

And I don't think you can actually have capitalism at all if you are not willing to let the market decide a whole lot is what is produced, and at what price.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Always with the novel length posts that are a medley of straw men, non sequiturs, and conspiracy theories. It's a headache to wade into and dissect, especially when your rebuttal will be ignored anyway.

"Gish gallop" describes most of @wellwisher 's posts.
I know this guy from other forums. Waste of time. He has a suite of obsessions and is incapable of serious discussion. It’s just soapboxing.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I think, in fact, that it's not only work and patience that people don't have. I think, from having listened to so many of them, that a lot of voters just really don't understand the complexities of

People have different levels of understanding, and there may be some issues and topics which are highly complex and difficult to relate in an atmosphere of angry soundbites and unmitigated venom and contempt.

What I've noticed is that a lot of people weighing in on these issues don't really seem to know what everyday life is like for working people in America. I see a lot of people from outside of America (such as yourself) or people who have lived lives of insular luxury, so what do they really know about what life is like for the common people in America?

But hasn't this administration passed (and is now implementing) a huge infrastructure program? Is not this administration working at bringing back chip manufacturing to the U.S.?

Yes, although that might go under the heading of "too little, too late." But yeah, I guess every little bit helps.

And I don't think you can actually have capitalism at all if you are not willing to let the market decide a whole lot is what is produced, and at what price.

The goal should be a better quality of life for all, however it is obtained. "Having capitalism" just for the sake of "having capitalism" should not be a goal, in and of itself.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member

He got some glowing pre-show coverage, and even after his first episode late Monday there was some positive press as well. But Stewart is a political comedy star from an era that has completely disappeared, ever since large portions of the American media became hopelessly addicted to the drug that is Donald Trump, obsessed with their perceived existential fight with the former (and potentially future) president.

In the years since Trump rose to power, “objectivity” has become seen as a sign of ignorance, or worse. There are hysterical screams of “false equivalency” and “bothsidesism” and “whataboutism” — because if you’re not focused solely on Trump alone, you’re simply part of the problem. (Former New York Times journalist Amy Chozick told me in my book “Uncovered” — out in paperback next week — that there’s a new generation of young journalists who believe “objectivity is akin to white supremacy.”)

This rings true, especially in some posts I see where we see terms like "false equivalency" and "whataboutism" - "because if you’re not focused solely on Trump alone, you’re simply part of the problem." However, I did not know that objectivity is now white supremacy.

In 2024 — and since 2017 — the “Daily Show” oeuvre, and the corporate media apparatus, has been the opposite. It wasn’t not enough to simply attack Trump or his administration — no, the target was the “deplorables” who put him there in the first place.

Which brings us to Monday night, and Stewart returning with a manifesto of sorts, tackling the “Biden-Trump rematch that nobody wants.” He set the table on 2024 by describing in detail the threat of Trump, but also spent significant time calling out the obvious cognitive decline and mental fitness of President Biden — including those Democratic defenders who are spinning a false storyline after the damning special counsel report. He referred to Biden as “Chocolate Chip Cookie Guy” and mocked Biden’s awkward TikTok debut.

This was capital-U Unacceptable for some in the press. “Centrist Democrats … were appalled at what they saw as a betrayal by one of their own,” wrote Rolling Stone. “Stewart’s main segment was classic bothsidesism,” wrote Slate.

Jon Stewart is about to learn a hard truth about the current media and cultural environment — his brand isn’t welcome anymore. I’d almost feel bad for him, if it wasn’t partially his fault we’re in this mess to begin with.

And now here we are — Stewart has “appalled” the left because of his “betrayal” for daring to state the obvious about Joe Biden. Welcome to the all-or-nothing future you helped build, Jon. Good luck — you’ll need it.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
"'Both sides are the same' rhetoric...a potential disaster for democracy."

She does seemingly take after her uncle in some ways, with this kind of rhetoric of her own, where now she's calling Stewart a "threat to democracy" ...
She said the rhetoric is a threat. Comparing her to the ex-President is silly at best.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
330,000 000 people to choose from and you get
trump v biden.
Trump is the wild card. Normally we get proven servants of the oligarchy on both sides, and they pretend they're different from each other by drumming up socially divisive issues that they can champion while doing nothing at all about the real problems we're facing that's being created by the boundless greed of their capitalist overlords. I think a big reason people support Trump is just because he's uncontrollable. Even by the oligarchs.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
330,000 000 people to choose from and you get
trump v biden.
The question is not who one might choose but who has the best chance of defeating Trump. I suspect that turning to Kamala Harris would guarantee a Trump victory, while replacing both Biden and Harris would be something akin to electoral suicide.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Strength Linguist
I happen to disagree with the idea that Jon Stewart's satirical comedy was just another 'both are the same' exercise. First of all, he is a comedian who does political commentary, but he clearly favors Biden's candidacy over Trump's. He made that clear during the show, so criticizing a snippet of his monologue out of context is misleading. What Stewart did was attack the age problem we have with politicians. Biden does deserve criticism when he screws something up, just as any other politician would. The concerns that Stewart raised in his monologue need to be discussed openly, and tiptoeing around the age issue is not going to make it go away. IMO, Stewart did a service to the Biden campaign by poking fun at some of Biden's missteps and the way they were mishandled by his staff and supporters. He also made sure to heap a lot of criticism on Donald Trump, not just for his many missteps, but also his deliberately malevolent and criminal behavior.

Anyway, people can draw their own conclusions. The show is only a half hour long, and it is freely available on Youtube for anyone who wants to see it:

 

Firenze

Active Member
Premium Member
But surely assertions of false equivalence ARE a threat to democracy, aren't they? They embody and encourage superficial, lazy cynicism, lead to voter apathy and gloss over crucial differences. I should have thought any voter would have a right to be angry about that, regardless of their skin colour or wealth.

Both candidates may be old men with not the sharpest mental faculties (as Reagan also was, at least towards the end), but that's about all they have in common.
I’m reminded of question a politician asked of an aide that was complaining about new blood being needed - ‘Would you rather have an old Thurgood Marshall, or a young Clarence Thomas?’
Age should be secondary to Character.
 
Top