Anti religious freedom activist vandalises religious icon. Is religion under threat in America?

[ThatRobGuy]

I'll go with (C) - your examples are generally pretty poor and often feel forced. There are absolutely cases of hypocrisy among the left, but your insistence that every thread critical of the right have a "both sides" means that those good examples (which should be called out) get lost in the noise of forced comparisons. This makes people more likely to reject your posts out-of-hand as soon as they see the "WeLl AcKsHuAlLy ThE lEfT..." without actually reading it. You're like the boy who cried wolf at this point.

I'm pretty sure most people don't actually read most of the examples I provide.

Or they scan, snipe, and snip the one or two sentences that they feel they can "dunk on" and conveniently ignore the rest.

I'd also note that not every thread critical of right gets a "both sides" from me.

I'd suggest that there's a little bit of "bad faith" debating going on in a lot of threads.

I see a large number of threads where both the title (as well as the contents of the first post) are overtly setup within the formula of
1) Exclusively bash the right for things that neither side has a clean track record on
2) Wait for someone to predictably point out a little bit of the hypocrisy
3) Get the "whataboutism" & "both sides" rebuttal ready to go in the clipboard to paste in as soon as they do

 

[KCfromNC]

Or they scan, snipe, and snip the one or two sentences that they feel they can "dunk on" and conveniently ignore the rest.

Perhaps leaving those easily refuted parts out of the posts would make them stronger ... or maybe there's a reason the posts need to be heavily padded with them to try and make the case that both sides are equally bad.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Perhaps leaving those easily refuted parts out of the posts would make them stronger ... or maybe there's a reason the posts need to be heavily padded with them to try and make the case that both sides are equally bad.

Eh, I honestly don't think that's what's happening...

The recent trend of trying to dismiss everything with "bOtH sIDes" really started in some of the "culture war"-issue threads.

Where early on, I pointed out that many of the moves one sides makes are likely a reactionary response to the other side pushing something too far in the other direction.

Then the "bOtH sIDes" stuff started when people didn't want to entertain any notion apart from "the other side is pushing things to extremes, completely unprovoked! Nothing our side's done could've contributed to this reaction in any way!"


In this particular case, we're talking about a story where a group (that's not even actually a religious entity, they're a trolling organization...they don't hide that, and I've even said that I like some of the things the ST has done), specifically did something for the purpose of agitating religious people, and when religious people got predictably agitated and one acted out rather irrationally, everyone's taking the position that it's somehow "evidence of the intolerance of Christians", and any mention of the provocation should be "off the table".

I drew the parallel to the situation Curtis Cullwell Center attack, where a group (that was an anti-Muslim group putting an event on under the guise of free speech advocacy) put on a "Draw Muhammad Contest", something that was intended to agitate and provoke Muslims, and that led to two Muslims taking the bait and acting irrationally.

When I said the differing media/pundit treatment of the two situations highlighted a double-standard, that's when the "both sides" accusations started rolling in.

In the wake of the Draw Muhammad Contest fallout, people had no problem both acknowledging the role that provocation played as well as laying some of the blame at the feet of the "American Freedom Defense" group for putting on the event in the first place, thereby creating a hostile situation that didn't need to happen.

In this case of this guy wrecking an ST display, it would seem anything other than "Nope, it's all the Christians' fault, they just need to be tolerant of things other people do even if it's something that makes them mad... and any mention of provocation potentially contributing to this is just whataboutism"

Or to put it more succinctly, why is the notion that "extremism is something that can result from provocation" a recognized concept with regards to some situations, but not others?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I drew the parallel to the situation Curtis Cullwell Center attack, where a group (that was an anti-Muslim group putting an event on under the guise of free speech advocacy) put on a "Draw Muhammad Contest", something that was intended to agitate and provoke Muslims, and that led to two Muslims taking the bait and acting irrationally.

When I said the differing media/pundit treatment of the two situations highlighted a double-standard, that's when the "both sides" accusations started rolling in.

No, your initial attempt at "both sides" in this thread was a comparison to the Stop Oil protests and CHOP/CHAZ. That's when people called you out. Draw Muhammad is a better example of a double standard, but like I said, it's lost in the noise of your other poor examples.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

No, your initial attempt at "both sides" in this thread was a comparison to the Stop Oil protests and CHOP/CHAZ. That's when people called you out. Draw Muhammad is a better example of a double standard, but like I said, it's lost in the noise of your other poor examples.

Actually, if you look at the context of my post, those were extraneous example meant to address the issue of hypocrisy more broadly...
Here was the post:
Hey, if people stop tossing out cases of hypocrisy that their own side is clearly also guilty of, it wouldn't give me so many opportunities lol.

Just so we're keeping score.

The conservatives who were outraged about BLM rioters were sympathetic to the Jan 6th rioters, correct?

The progressives who were somewhat sympathetic to Chaz/Chop and BLM riots and eco-extremists defacing historical art are feigning outrage over "destruction of property" in this situation, correct?

That's clearly both sides being hypocritical about things, yes? (and let it be known, I mentioned earlier that I'm actually on the "left's" side on this particular one, I mentioned that I see what the Satanic Temple does as productive in most cases, and I'm a staunch supporter of separation of Church and State)


I mentioned the Draw Muhammed Contest 2 or 3 posts before that one.

I don't know why it's so hard to just call this for what it is here...
It's double standards that are being largely ignored due to the fact that there's a subset of people who are viewing everything through a "well, is it punching up or punching down?" lens to decide whether or not they're going to be upset about something.


Incidentally, you're the first one in this thread to actually even acknowledge that the Draw Muhammad example was comparable, and that's the one you said was the "good example". It would seem as if people were content to go "radio silent" on that one and just lay in wait for the opportunity to find an example they could trot out the "both sides" snark on.

Just as a point of reference, when there was a thread a while back about a "pro life pregnancy center" getting attacked, some people (who participated in this thread, but I won't name specifically as to not violate forum rules) said these things...which received "likes" from the "bOtH SiDEs" crew members who also participated in this thread. (these weren't responses to my posts, these were response they gave to other people)

5 of these 8 are the members of "both sides" crew...but like I said, I can't post their names as it would violate forum rules. (no worries, your name isn't on the list)

So why is the "whataboutism" standard so one-directional?, fact of the matter is, the majority of people who love to do the "bOtH SiDEs" thing, have given "like" and "winner" reacts to a plethora of "bOtH SiDEs" posts when it's something that in ideological alignment with their own position.

 

[KCfromNC]

Eh, I honestly don't think that's what's happening...

Oh well, you're free to disagree. Just giving a view of how the posts look from the outside, not tainted by whatever drives one to try and rationalize that the current state of the GOP isn't as bad as it actually is.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Oh well, you're free to disagree. Just giving a view of how the posts look from the outside, not tainted by whatever drives one to try and rationalize that the current state of the GOP isn't as bad as it actually is.

I've never denied that the current state of the GOP is bad. There's a reason why I don't vote for them (at least not at national-level elections)

I voted for an "other" in 2016 and for Biden in 2020.

I think people need to stop conflating the concepts of "The GOP is bad" with "That must mean the other team is sensible on everything by default and above criticism"

There's a reason why despite Biden having a landslide victory in 2020, his prospects for 2024 are looking a bit more dismal.

The "look how bad the other team is, let's all just focus on that and only that...and not worry about making ourselves more appealing" is clearly a strategy has...
A) a relatively short shelf life
and/or
B) only works when coming out of a 4 years with a uniquely obnoxious president like Trump in office

Everyone clearly has different tolerance thresholds set with regards to that subject.

People assume that a critique of both sides is trying to make a "false equivalency" where I'm somehow trying to suggest that both teams are equally bad on everything, it's not...it's providing an explanation for why some people won't vote for democrats.

Meaning, if we say hypothetically, if the "obnoxious divisive factor" is at an 8 for the GOP and at a 5 for the Democrats, that alone may be good enough for some people to say "okay, I think the Democrats are the more sensible choice".

For others (who have strong positions on specific issues), the GOP could be at a 10, and the Democrats would have to take it down a 3 or 4 before they'd be able to get any "converts"

And the inverse of that premise exists in specific regions as well... for instance, the New England region has had several popular Republican governors despite being "blue states", it's because guys like Charlie Baker, Larry Hogan, and Chris Sununu realized that if they're going to win in those regions, they have to turn back the dial a bit and go out of their way to be seen as "not nearly as partisan/in-your face" by the people in their states. Those three guys have learned the lesson about their region that I think the Democrats need to learn when it comes to areas like the Midwest (which are gettable states). A Republican +8 candidate could win Ohio, a Democrat +8 can not...they'd need to dial it back to a +3 or +4.
Meaning, an obnoxious republican could likely win Ohio (due to large amounts of ideological overlap on some issues), many rural Ohioans wouldn't tolerate the same level of obnoxiousness from Democrats because they'd already be having to make some policy concessions to vote for them in the first place.

 

[KCfromNC]

I think people need to stop conflating the concepts of "The GOP is bad" with "That must mean the other team is sensible on everything by default and above criticism"

Until demonstrated otherwise, I'm going to assume these aren't actual quotes from actual people, and certainly not anything actually posted in this thread. Which goes back to my earlier point about leaving out the weakest arguments trying to demonstrate that both sides are the same.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Until demonstrated otherwise, I'm going to assume these aren't actual quotes from actual people, and certainly not anything actually posted in this thread. Which goes back to my earlier point about leaving out the weakest arguments trying to demonstrate that both sides are the same.

But that seems to be sidestepping my point. Which is that nobody's claiming "both sides are the same". (neither in the specific flaws, nor the degree to which those flaws exists)

If the rule is
"As long as the GOP is worse, any criticism of the GOP can never be counterbalanced to any degree with criticism of Democrats (as a means of explaining which blind spots they have with regards to electability in certain regions), and should be viewed as both-sides'ism and thus disregarded. (which is often assessed by people through a very myopic lens)

Then it's really a distinction without a difference.


To reframe my previous post, think of it as each person having a threshold of "flaw allowances".

Each person has, let's say, 10 flaw points they're willing to make allowances for the sake of keeping things simple
That covers both policy flaws (things people disagree with you on) as well as personality flaws (obnoxious behaviors)

Then end result is that people are willing to tolerate more obnoxious behavior on the personality front, as long as the there aren't as many strikes on the policy front (and vice versa) before it hits their threshold of "nope, I can't go along with them".

For example, a candidate/party who's an 8 on the "obnoxious-o-meter", but has 90% alignment on key policy is going to be more net-palatable to someone than a person who's only a 3 on the "obnoxious-o-meter", but disagrees with them on 80% of the issues they see as "key issues".


To highlight what I'm talking about, if we were to ask people in deep blue areas who'd they rather vote for, Beto O'Rourke vs Mitt Romney... I'm assuming they'd say the former, despite the the fact that Beto is definitely more obnoxious and Mitt Romney is about as controversial/provocative as a breakfast of plain white toast and oatmeal.

The reason for that? Romney loses too many points on the policy front in their eyes and they'd have a much higher "bovine excrement threshold" for O'Rourke since he agrees with them on a lot more on various policy issues.


So if a democrat (in response to someone saying something about O'Rourke's outbursts during TX press conferences) said "yeah, well what about that time Romney did XYZ", it wouldn't be fair to simply disregard their rebuttal as "both sides'ing" (at least not if it's someone interested in "how can we get these folks on to vote for our team"), it should be viewed as "these are the tweaks required if we want get that person to vote for us"

A more real world example:
While many of us wouldn't see a midwestern state college putting a "pronoun guidelines" section in their handbook as being "as extreme as" a state government opting to ban books, if people are regularly mentioning the former as a rebuttal to a thread about the latter, that's their way of saying "on this particular topic, you're at an 8 and you'll need to bring it down to a 3 if you want our vote", and that's probably something that shouldn't be immediately dismissed (that is, if people don't want to lose "gettable" states in federal elections)

 

[KCfromNC]

But that seems to be sidestepping my point.

It seen as sidestepping to ask if a post is based on the opinions expressed by actual people?

That seems pretty telling to the kind of mental gymnastics needed to keep finding reasons for bringing up this "but but but both sides" stuff in so many unrelated threads.