Many of you might have noticed a fairly standard rightoid tactic when backed into a corner, confronted with a tough reality is to simply declare "both sides" or something similar, without ever actually presenting those examples. When they do present them almost invariably they are wildly disparate events with no connection to each other.
This might seem like random rightoid coping, but it's actually an engineered response woven into the fabric of American society by conservatives.
The cons understand a few truths dems do not:
A) Americans love the perception of being politically independent.
B) Americans are fricking r-slurred.
"But both sides" serves a few important roles.
it allows idiots to elevate themselves and feel special by creating the illusion of independent thought.
it allows republicans to get away with the
Indefensible because the idiots from 1) will never apply any deep thought to these events.
it removes the need for substantive discussion at all. It allows the poorly informed to engage in performative political discussion in which everything is the exact same, and therefore the consequences of their political ignorance no longer exist.
"But both sides" has been carefully cultivated by conservative politicians. It's the perfect weapon, second only to "voting doesn't matter" which is heavily aided by both siderism.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You really want to claim that soc dems are socialists? They don't even call themselves socialists. Or do you really think Hitler was a commie?
I will admit to have been baited.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Soc dens aren't called that because of socialism? They just really like wearing socks?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Social democrats. They support nice capitalism. Capitalism with a human face. Think sweden. Do you think sweden is socialist?
Democratic socialists are something else.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Are there any non-marxist socialists in your opinion? Or is it part of the def of socialism that you have to be a marxoid
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The utopian socialist wing split off into anarchists and some other factions that all died out.
Technically, the strasserists were non marxist socialists. They literally died out. Ouch.
Since marxism is materialism which is a fundamental aspect of socialism since, kind of by definition have to be a marxoid to be a socialist.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context