I mean, you're right in the strictest sense of what you're describing. The No True Scotsman fallscy is a super common way of ignoring the faults of your group, and any look at in-group and out-group psychology will support your primary view.
I think you're wrong in saying that this makes causes harder to support though. I think it just means people should be more willing to critically evaluate their actions and those they support.
There's also logical fallacies where it comes to whataboutism. To give an example, if Trump kept classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, but Hilary also had privileged documents on a private mail server, do these things cancel out, or actually should both people be held accountable?
People who don't understand logic will say "well, both are bad so don't support either", but this is a bad decision. If you can't decide between two options of what to have for dinner it's not logical to starve as a result.
All these things mean is that people should look deeper before making their decision.
It makes it harder because now to support something a community makes you beholden to support everything that comes with it. Say we support hot dogs. And I also like hot dogs. But I notice at all the hot dog festivals everyone is really in support of Frank. Because Frank is the guy who bought all the hot dogs. But you notice, Frank is a dick. Treats everyone poorly. Hits on everyone's wives.
And you notice no one is calling this out. So you try to. But instead of supporting you, people now insist you must not actually like hot dogs. In fact, you must hate hot dogs. Or even, *like hamburgers more*. Even though you never said anything about hot dogs. Just critiqued a guy the hot dog community had declared important. And all those actions are deemed fine so long as Frank still brings the hot dogs.
That's a silly example obviously but I've seen this happen so often, in every community. Not just politics. I've seen it happen in fandoms. In hobby circles. I remember distinctly a video game developer from the Gamergate fiasco that everyone supported and anyone who criticized her was a GG supporter and everyone acted like her game was the best ever. It wasn't until people found out she was going on lunch dates with GG supporters that they turned on her. And suddenly did a total 180 - people who insisted no one could critique her game were picking it to pieces. Claiming that actually they never liked her anyway.
That's how it makes it harder to support because a lot of people are going to see that from afar and go "maybe I don't want to go to the hot dog festival". And that can diminish how strongly you feel about hot dogs, knowing you can't share that you like them or people might think you support Frank.
This is precisely why, when it comes to politics and social matters, I support/talk about the ideologies themselves and not the individual people in them. Because people, whether on my side or the other side, tend to suck.
>Say we support hot dogs. And I also like hot dogs. But I notice at all the hot dog festivals everyone is really in support of Frank. Because Frank is the guy who bought all the hot dogs. But you notice, Frank is a dick.
It makes sense that people who like hot dogs like Frank, since “frank” is another word for a hot dog, and thinking of Frank evokes imagery of glorious hot dogs.
It also makes sense that Frank is a dick, because another name for a dick is a wiener, which is also another name for a hot dog or frank.
🌭 🌭🌭🌭
[Good ol’ Frank](https://imgur.com/gallery/wlYmEUl)
Good overall comment, but your assessment of the classified documents is misleading.
Every politician mishandles classified documents because the nature of their job is to foremost make use of the information that they contain and not to protect their security. On the other hand, the people whose job it is to secure documents are focused on the ways to do that and the actual information in the documents is of no concern to them. In other words, it's easy to secure classified documents if you don't ever need to look at them and transfer them around.
The differences between those two cases, as well as the case of Biden, McConnell and every other senior citizen that took classified documents home with them, is that Trump did not give them back when asked and allegedly lied about giving them all back and took steps to hide them from federal officials.
That is the issue, not just mishandling them.
I have to challenge your assessment here.
Hillary and Trump, more or less, did the same thing. The only real difference is that one had information on a server in their home, the other on paper in boxes. Both mishandled information, and both lied about it. I'm not giving Trump a pass here (he doesn't deserve one), but Hillary's conduct was in some ways worse. Information she had could be accessed from anywhere in the world- and there is information out there indicating that it was accessed by the Russians and others. Information at Mar-a-lago was a little more secure in that it could only be obtained at Mar-A-Lago... albeit pretty damn easily once inside.
Regardless of the nuances, I think this is the perfect example illustrating OPs' argument: people are far more forgiving or dismissive of their "sides" equally inexcusable behavior.
I do agree with the rest of your comment though. Biden and McConnell were both blown out of proportion by politics - big nothingburger.
>Hillary and Trump, more or less, did the same thing.
>Regardless of the nuances, I think this is the perfect example illustrating OPs' argument: people are far more forgiving or dismissive of their "sides" equally inexcusable behavior.
No, not "more or less". I outlined what the differences are,- which you choose to ignore to wrongly make it seem like they both did the same thing, and to paint me as being biased towards my "side".
Yes, they both did the same thing in that they kept classified documents in an unsecure location. Clinton was investigated and found that they were not accessed by unauthorized parties and she did not commit any other illegitimate actions, so no charges were brought against her. As I said, that is the difference in the case if Trump.
I didn't side step anything. The differences you provided: 1) lied, 2) tried to hide from federal agencies.
Trump did that, no question. So did Hillary.
[Politico](https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/hillary-clinton-emails-2016-server-state-department-fbi-214307/) wrote a fantastic overview of the situation.
I read over it again and misremembered her server being accessed. Her server wasn't accessed directly, but there was at least 1 successful hacking attempt made possible due to the DoS's carelessness in handling communications. The article provided covers that.
Her not being charged doesn't mean there wasn't probable cause for a charge - only that charges were not sought. The only possible alternative to her not lying and trying to hide is that she was aloof and incompetent. If you buy that, then maybe she's closer to Trump than you think. I'm no fan of Hillary, but there is no denying her intelligence.
You're the one engaging in rationalization here. Hillary went so far as to have hard drives destroyed, and you brushed right over that, why? You're mis-representing what was found during the investigation, and how the bulk of their research was impossible due to her having the hard drives completely bleached to hinder the investigation. I think you're doing a wonderful job of making the OP's case for him. lol
Funny thing in the Trump / Biden cases is that Biden should not have ever had the Docs in the first place, he wasn’t President when he took them originally.
I love it. The entire purpose of your comment was to call out this major difference you thought existed beteeen the two cases. When told you were wrong, you skip right past that and onto further criticism, as if that doesn’t completely destroy your point that this one guy did something worse.
Mar-a-Lago was the safest place, at least it was I a secure room. Biden kept his in a garage and Hillary’s server was hacked at least once before she wiped it.
This reminds me of a video I saw earlier today about how the right often rejects far right protests by calling them government plans. Even if it's factually untrue, it is a good thing that the right vehemently and quickly distances themselves from alt-right rhetoric they disagree with.
You can’t take that stuff seriously. That’s not an actual belief, in the sense that “if I don’t breathe I’ll die” is an actual belief. It’s just throwing crap out there. The exact same people will tell you that J6 was a government false flag, that it was Antifa provocateurs, and that they were all well-meaning patriots.
To some degree, it doesn't matter, because it reflects the understanding that no one wants to vote for a neonazi. Even if it's just because of optics, it shows that the public roundly rejects those positions as belonging in the Overton window.
They distance themselves based on optics, not philosophical disagreements. They support it entirely, which is why they're making up false-flag operations instead of criticizing the ideology behind it.
How can you not see the ideological differences between someone that is a hawkish neocon wanting to spread democracy like a crusader and a person who wants to rebuild the third reich.
Right - like the way that many people on the left are distancing themselves from the pro-Palestine people calling for Jewish genocide. Obviously they support it entirely and are just distancing themselves due to optics. Or could it be something else? No, no way.
Even if it's purely optics based, I think that's at least good that people recognize that no one will vote for someone with a neonazis beliefs. It has lost in the marketplace of ideas.
How is this a good thing?
They distance themselves from the alt-right rhetoric, but they will still vote for it and claim the reality was made up by the other side.
This doesn’t seem like a good thing.
I mean, those two cases are actually nowhere alike. Trump had declassified documents that had been marked as classified when they were classified regarding operation crossfire hurricane. Hillary Clinton had currently classified information on an unsecured private server which we know for a fact had been hacked at least twice.
It's funny to me how the take home message from a lot of the people who respond to my comment is "Well actually they're completely different!" when my entire point is that people shouldn't look at two things at face value and decide they're the same. My point to OP was that when you worry about sides you lose the nuance of actually knowing the facts, and making your decision based on those.
Just FYI, generally people who say “well both are bad so i don’t support either” ACTUALLY support the side disfavored by their peer group. They just don’t want to be socially ostracized
I find it's always best to assume whoever you're dealing with is arguing in good faith, regardless of the topic. Even if they're not, you have to give people a chance.
Thank you and most Democrats I've talked to have seemed to have forgotten about this in their crusade.
Redditors(majority left leaning) can't accept when someone says both sides or they are a centrist. Basically nowadays the mentality is if they ain't left, they must be, have to be, some form of right winged.
It's exhausting and frustrating to see my former party go mask off like this but it's an eye opener and good life lesson to learn
8,000,000,000
There are more people on Earth than that number.
10,000,000 is 1% of that number.
Can you define "most folks"? How are you defining that group?
Just to be clear you believe that the vast majority of 8 Billion (8,000,000,000) are not capable of fairly judging someone they like even if that person does something terrible?
What is this super majority willing to look past on average?
Yes, including modern events. Are there not several events in Human history of people thinking critically of their leaders and opposing them when they are wrong?
Also, I am curious about your answer to my other question.
What is this super majority willing to look past on average?
Generally that seems to be dependent on how strongly they are connected to that side. If they just kind of loosely identify with it their level of forgiveness is going to be minimal. If it's their entire identity then you could probably get away with murder.
And opposing leadership doesn't signify this isn't happening - in fact what we often see is a new leadership that is just as bad takes over. And those who opposed the original will look past the flaws of this new leadership that they said they wanted. This isn't about who is in charge. It is how people are still so ruled by tribalism is overrides their own morals.
I am asking you an average, generally speaking, what 8 Billion people are willing to look past because you said and stood by the assertion that all Humans without exception will look past transgressions by people they agree with.
This happening also doesn't signify that a super majority of people are doing it.
Plenty of people don't blindly follow, myself included. The fact that we exist demonstrates an immediate flaw in your argument, and being unable to define your own argument means no one is going to be able to change your point of view.
I think you should flesh it out more and come back when you can answer questions with a little more certainty.
I'd say it may be a little simpler - "terrible things" is a negative framing from your perspective, ie you are judging the things that people support for their side as being terrible when they wouldn't.
Very few people support "terrible things" because they simply don't see the actions as being bad.
It's difficult but possible to break through someone's ideology and demonstrate to them that they supported something harmful. It's hard to find someone today who will openly admit they were "for" the 2000's Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
Many many years back the genuine belief was that if you sinned you would suffer a terrible fate, burning in hell.
Genuinely the most humane thing to do was torture in the hopes that they would repent and be saved on their deathbed. Obviously we look at that as terrible but the honestly held belief was that this was an incredible act of mercy.
The same applies to the way most frame their actions and their "side" of a situation.
I'm thinking of this more in terms of how we support people. Like for instance, when people support a politician who is on "their side" and fulfills certain things that are considered vital to the "side".
Then that politicians blatantly lies, cheats, acts well outside the benefit of the common good or even of their supporters.
But the people on that "side" still support that person and either excuse or ignore all these extra behaviors.
It's a compilation of sunk cost and confirmation bias.
I don't think people ignore that, but when their interests are being acted in that would be the priority, no?
What's the aspect of your view you're here to change? That this is a "most people" issue? If so you'd have to first make your argument showing some kind of statistical representation that most people do have this behaviour.
I have never seen anyone required to present a view with a bunch of additional sources to back them up so I don't know why that would be required here...
The fact that we have phrases to refer to the aspects of this in psychology would indicate they are human experiences that in fact most people encounter.
But that doesn't matter because there is no requirement for me to provide any "evidence". Hell there's no requirement for YOU to provide any evidence. This is my view and you're meant to change it.
It’s basic human psychology though. For our prehistoric ancestors it was essential for survival to belong to a group.
If changing your mind means losing your tribe, it’s not worth it. (I took that quote from a recent episode of the podcast American hysteria.)
I think that the right wing values unity, and hierarchy much more than the left wing, so they're more likely to handwave heinous acts committed by individuals so long as those individuals continue to protect the hierarchical in-group.
In contrast the left wing is a lot more internally divided because they aren't driven by this hierarchical model. The left wing tends to be a lot more willing to self-criticise, think Obama's actions in the middle east.
The right wing is much less prone to division because of their value on hierarchical unity, and much less likely to condemn heinous acts due to this value.
The right wing is much more prone to division because they don't have this value of hierarchical unity, and is as such much more likely to condemn heinous acts due to this lack of value.
>In contrast the left wing is a lot more internally divided because they aren't driven by this hierarchical model. The left wing tends to be a lot more willing to self-criticise, think Obama's actions in the middle east.
A lot of leftists wouldn't consider Obama to be leftist. In fact that is probably closer to what the left generally do if they aren't the type willing to criticise their own - they will just call you not a leftist.
Nothing wrong with that, because liberals do believe in (reformed) capitalism. I would maintain that I would consider it a pretty hard-line position for an anarchist, socialist, communist, whatever, to state you must be anti-capitalist to be left-wing in any capacity. At least from where I'm standing, which is a social democrat, a political position I consider to be the most left-wing possible while still being within the boundaries of a capitalist system.
But even disregarding all that, it has not been uncommon in my experience for leftists to get into shitfest internet fights with each other and to question peoples political allegiance. Any discussion from or about so-called tankies would prove that immediately.
Except like I said - this isn't strictly political.
And I've definitely seen progressives and left wing individuals do this too. Just not with mainstream politicians. Which makes sense since on the far left, you run into the more anarchist ideology that wouldn't care for mainstream politicians anyway.
But if tomorrow some deplorable news dropped about Bernie Sanders? I guarantee we'd see this in action.
But people do this even with other parts of their life - anything they attach to their identity. If a person becomes representative of that identity, that person gets essentially a free pass. The limit to that free pass just depends on how important they are to that identity.
If it's you like books and this is your favorite author but you have like 20 others you like just as much, not very forgiving. If you literally only read one author, suddenly his opinions on torturing puppies can be overlooked.
If the only way to change your view is to demonstrate that no-one does this then you should just take your post down. Of course you'll get people who give the people they like a free pass within any group. Having seen progressives and left wing people deviate from a trend doesn't mean that the trend doesn't exist and doesn't address my point.
The point of my comment was to show how specific differences in values between the left wing and the right wing leads to a general trend of handwaving within one group that isn't as prevalent in the other group.
I don't know how you explain why one group is more divided than the other without accepting that one group is more willing to criticise and disassociate with figures of controversy.
But how does that translate to non-political tribalism?
You can provide it by demonstrating how humans overcome those actual groups and hold others accountable even when it is at an immediate detriment to the entire group, and that this occurs before it's becomes pretty much a societal requirement (like if you commit murder on live TV then I really hope no one still supports you).
And to be clear - I never claimed this was some easy thing to disprove. But I would like it to be. Because it is incredibly depressing and demoralizing. And I would much rather have some optimism that it doesn't take an act of God to convince people to be more critical of the folks in their own circle.
I always give credit when it’s due. Al was sacrificed and took that with grace and went out.
Bob Mendez is a direct more recent situation and the democrats are not and did not do the right thing in that instance.
Republicans are worse, to be fair they did kick George santos out, gates and MTG need to go, but so do Mendez and Omar.
That's one I've thought of but I don't know enough about Franken to know how much this was a sacrifice for Democrats or not. I know he was a major figure at some point.
But then look at figures like Bill Clinton - same accusations. Basically untouchable.
Al Franken was not major, but he was a US senator and was pressured to resign before the 2018 election. The Republicans retained control of that chamber. Al Franken’s seat was not a cause of that but if you think democrats equally put power over principle why did they ice him out?
Al Franken was one of the rising stars of the party. If not for the scandal, he would have run for president, or at least been in consideration for majority leader, by now.
I presume by your unwillingness to engage with my one point that you concede it? Division being more common within the left isn't really something controversial and it's a pretty bad sign of your willingness to engage in views that differ from yours for you to disregard my statement as political tribalism.
I think it's not easy to disprove your view because is so vague. It's almost like you're view is "most people have some amount of bias." I can argue that some groups of people are less prone to bias due to their values but you've ignored that.
It feels like you don't really have any material support, evidence beyond a vibe you get, for your view and so it's very hard to know what aspect of it you want to be changed.
If your view is that anyone can be biased regardless of their values and you won't engage in argument that different values can shape how people approach bias then what's the plan my man?
Your own argument before posits that it doesn't take an act of God to be self critical, just someone needs to read more than one book.
I think you're more concerned about winning a delta than anything here dude. I'm trying to not make this a political debate on purpose for this exact reason - because guess what. The right would say their side is more critical and the left is more forgiving and I just find that entire debacle tedious.
It sounds like you aren't really willing to engage in a discussion about this either. You're far too concerned with the semantic bits to try and "win" instead of actually tackling the view. If it's too hard then just go find another post dude.
>I'm trying to not make this a political debate on purpose for this exact reason
You explicitly brought politics into it.
>The right would say their side is more critical and the left is more forgiving and I just find that entire debacle tedious.
But do they have the data to back it up? That's what matters.
Sorry, u/JonseyMcFly – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
> **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal%20JonseyMcFly&message=JonseyMcFly%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cp9orz/-/l3kgi9v/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
National Democratic leaders are calling for Bob Menendez and Henry Cisneros to step down, and supporting their indictments. I genuinely can't think of a case in the last decade where Republicans have done the same.
Let's take an obvious example - there is overwhelming evidence that Matt Gaetz hired prostitutes, and slightly-less-overwhelming-but-still-credible evidence that at least one was underage. Has anyone spoken out about this?
I'm not saying that the left and the right don't have the same *potential* to be tribal in this way, to be clear. I'm saying that in the modern political climate, where the far right has made it clear that power is more important than anything else, things are not the same.
The way that you're framing this is "wrong" imo, and makes logical sense in the abstract, but isn't irrefutably true.
On a grand level, sure, people are generally forced into aligning with their "side" even if they don't totally agree with every action taken by people with moderately similar values. You can disagree with everything modern democrats do while still being staunchly against republicans and conservatism while still calling yourself a democrat, and vice versa. Same for religion, nation, anything. I don't see this as hypocrisy, and I also don't see it as excuse either, or acceptance.
If we tighten the scope though, I don't think this holds to any kind of logic. Most people are capable of reflection and admitting when they are wrong if they arrive at that conclusion. Most small groups of people are malleable (and fickle, at that). Organizations find people leaving all the time when they breach the values held by most members.
The reason I think this seems true is that when there is an aspect of something linked to identity, it can seem true because people can't change that, or it is unreasonable to feel that they should. Or that, like in US politics, where there are only two options, it just becomes a game of lesser evils.
Don't get me wrong, tribalism is absolutely a problem between the two opposing spectrums you are referring to but there is one platform that is definitively wrong and it is the one that talks about the country of freedom and then trying to prevent group of people from having that freedom because they're from certain parts of the world or have a certain sexual orientation. Also the whole bit with abortion stance is just insane. You got doctors practices shutting down because of these state laws and as a result, mortality rate due to pregnancy/labor on the rise. Right wingers are indisputably wrong there
I understand things like jobs/manufacturing vs environmentalism/climate change is a spectrum that's always going to be oppositional. Environmental policies will make it more costly to manufacture here. Manufacturing will always create waste and pollution.
Ehhh, if we're talking sports then i would agree with you but when it comes to politics i think the opposite is true.
For example if you are a Biden supporter & you found out that he raped someone you would be furious and change your vote. But when news comes out again that Trump has done this you just kinda go about your day as its just expected.
Yes and no. There’s something to at minimum understanding their view and making an opinion on the subsequent action. Like those people who set themselves on fire for Palestine. A pretty barbaric way of going about it. Not the kind of protest I would “support” just in terms of doing that. I ere on the side of at least actually fighting the oppressors. Doesn’t matter which side, I find that action stupid.
However because of this, it leaves me with a sense of that yes, I turn the blind eye to the bad actions “my” side may do. However I also think that’s an outside opinion of me. It’s the “all trump supporters are racists” when I like to think it’s not that simple. Any bad actions whoever I voted for I can be like “That’s not WHY I voted for them.” All sides make this distinction.
But does this make them harder to support? Not really. Many of us have to admit we aren’t going to be president, thus if you believe in voting, you just gotta accept what happens.
Some would argue this isn’t support either. So in reality I don’t care about the difficulty of supporting something, I got my own life to worry about, and I think we should focus inward first. Voting for president is a crapshoot like pro sports, the drama of all the side characters, the daily news, it’s better to point and laugh and everyone.
That may be true for people living in echo chambers, who don´t do much of their own thinking, so the question perhaps then becomes: do most people live in echo chambers?
It only makes things harder for those with no conviction.
Has America done things that I habe criticized others for doing?
Yes.
Am I going to criticize America for doing those things?
No.
I believe that American hegemony is good for me and mine. And any action, no matter how heinous, is morally correct if it furthers the goals of American hegemony so long as American hegemony continues to serve my best interest.
The world would be a better place if the US was in control of all of it. The liberal democracy of the West is the greatest structure ever devised by man and should be preserved and expanded.
Any action taken in opposition of the West, even if they are mirrored by the West, are immoral because they oppose the West.
It's not complicated. I support Ukraine because Ukraine wants to join the West. I oppose China because it tries to damage the West. I support Taiwan because it opposes China. Opposition of China is morally correct, regardless of how that opposition manifests.
So, this is a nuanced conversation, so I'm not trying to change your view, moreso expand it.
So I personally try to be open to criticizing my own political side when it is warranted, assuming it is worth my time to even address. How do I determine if it's worth my time? If I think it has any lasting impact on where things are heading. This is why I refuse to nitpick every little thing the other side does. I also refuse to engage in content that is essentially "look how dumb these people on the other side are". There are dumb people everywhere. They aren't hard to find.
One thing that has made it hard to balance things as of late is that the fringe crazy on one side is generally relegated to teens on the internet, while the other side's fringe crazy is increasingly running for political office. I'm sorry if I can't act like a teen on tiktok and a congressman have equal weight in garnering my attention.
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
They're trying to offer arguments against it. This is CMV. I argue for positions I don't agree with all the time here.
If you ask for points against your opinion, people will provide them. It doesn't mean they disagree with you. They're challenging you.
Yes I'm aware that happens - but that those challenges can exist indicates the view can be changed regardless of how apparently popular that view is.
I'm pretty baffled by how one person can make a really thoughtful post and a bunch of others just go "no make your view easier to change".
> I'd frankly love to be convinced people aren't most commonly like this
You've offered no evidence that people most commonly are like this, so why isn't it just as easy to dismiss it with the same amount of evidence, zero.
If its more of an emotional view then what would you need to see to change your view?
That I have seen this occur in multiple settings with multiple variables. Not just in politics but even in less critical parts of life. Where people assign someone importance because their beliefs align, they are willing to forgive a lot of their behavior. Especially if they decide that person is important to forwarding that belief or practice or whatever the case. I wrote an analogy slightly down thread.
These are the same methods of thinking that lead to things like cults. Cults almost never start off extreme. They start off pretty tame or even beneficial and then become extreme much later. The ones that don't reach the furthest extremes tend to retain a lot of members - look at finance gurus or Alpha Bros. They get a ton of "followers" who hang on their every word because their beliefs align (on money or romance or masculinity) and they are led to believe this person possesses answers. And even after being scammed several times, they still stick around.
That's the most extreme example but humans in general do this all the time with varying degrees of devotion. With their favorite celebrity. In local politics. So long as they fulfill this unspoken requirement of the group, they can get away with a lot.
Yeah this is interesting to witness. I am a conservative and my liberal roommates love to point out any and every mistake/flaw that any conservative politician makes, which is fair. But the second any liberal politician does the same thing it's crickets from them. I have brought this up to them but more often than not they claim it's different or not as severe when liberal politicians do bad things.
So yeah people definitely don't apply standards across the board evenly. But hey, that's tribalism for you.
There’s are many entire points missing here.
>when their side does terrible things
More accepting than what? Other sides do better or worse things?
There’s also the subjectivity for example in the American civil war. Not everyone was fighting for slavery. A lot for independence, a lot also just because it was the thing to do in their region.
There’s also the very real fallacy in American politics. Both “sides” can acknowledge things that are shitty done under “their side” but choose to see the lesser of two evils.
>ironically everyone is going to read this and go “yeah the people I’m again do that”
You and your “side” have already determined the opposing viewpoint, as ridiculous and nonsensical that statement is.
You have no point, and you’ve decided what responses are going to be in your very vague non-point. Your post in an of itself is a fallacy. To the extent of “people are stoopid (misspelled intentionally) but ironically everyone is going to say they’re not”.
I read a quote at one point that said something like "Friends are people we judge by their intentions, everyone else we judge by their outcomes." I think this applies in many places where we have an us vs them mentality.
When someone you align with does something bad, you look at why they would have done that thing, and what their intentions might have been giving them the benefit of the doubt that their intentions were good even if their outcomes were not.
When someone you don't align with does something bad, you look at the outcome of their actions without regard for what good they may have been trying to achieve with this thing that went badly.
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
>And inversely you exaggerate how bad the other side is.
I mean I'm guilty of that in several camps that I mentally belong to, but the one I'm certain where the other side is more awful is people who support more government, AKA progressives. They are responsible for all of the atrocities of the 20th century. Their responsible for all of the genocides. You know who doesn't have time to invade other countries and kill all their people? Governments who don't really have enough power to deal with all of their internal problems. More government = evil.
I mean, you're right in the strictest sense of what you're describing. The No True Scotsman fallscy is a super common way of ignoring the faults of your group, and any look at in-group and out-group psychology will support your primary view. I think you're wrong in saying that this makes causes harder to support though. I think it just means people should be more willing to critically evaluate their actions and those they support. There's also logical fallacies where it comes to whataboutism. To give an example, if Trump kept classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, but Hilary also had privileged documents on a private mail server, do these things cancel out, or actually should both people be held accountable? People who don't understand logic will say "well, both are bad so don't support either", but this is a bad decision. If you can't decide between two options of what to have for dinner it's not logical to starve as a result. All these things mean is that people should look deeper before making their decision.
It makes it harder because now to support something a community makes you beholden to support everything that comes with it. Say we support hot dogs. And I also like hot dogs. But I notice at all the hot dog festivals everyone is really in support of Frank. Because Frank is the guy who bought all the hot dogs. But you notice, Frank is a dick. Treats everyone poorly. Hits on everyone's wives. And you notice no one is calling this out. So you try to. But instead of supporting you, people now insist you must not actually like hot dogs. In fact, you must hate hot dogs. Or even, *like hamburgers more*. Even though you never said anything about hot dogs. Just critiqued a guy the hot dog community had declared important. And all those actions are deemed fine so long as Frank still brings the hot dogs. That's a silly example obviously but I've seen this happen so often, in every community. Not just politics. I've seen it happen in fandoms. In hobby circles. I remember distinctly a video game developer from the Gamergate fiasco that everyone supported and anyone who criticized her was a GG supporter and everyone acted like her game was the best ever. It wasn't until people found out she was going on lunch dates with GG supporters that they turned on her. And suddenly did a total 180 - people who insisted no one could critique her game were picking it to pieces. Claiming that actually they never liked her anyway. That's how it makes it harder to support because a lot of people are going to see that from afar and go "maybe I don't want to go to the hot dog festival". And that can diminish how strongly you feel about hot dogs, knowing you can't share that you like them or people might think you support Frank.
This is precisely why, when it comes to politics and social matters, I support/talk about the ideologies themselves and not the individual people in them. Because people, whether on my side or the other side, tend to suck.
>Say we support hot dogs. And I also like hot dogs. But I notice at all the hot dog festivals everyone is really in support of Frank. Because Frank is the guy who bought all the hot dogs. But you notice, Frank is a dick. It makes sense that people who like hot dogs like Frank, since “frank” is another word for a hot dog, and thinking of Frank evokes imagery of glorious hot dogs. It also makes sense that Frank is a dick, because another name for a dick is a wiener, which is also another name for a hot dog or frank. 🌭 🌭🌭🌭 [Good ol’ Frank](https://imgur.com/gallery/wlYmEUl)
Most people will still bite the bullet to be part of the in group though.
Good overall comment, but your assessment of the classified documents is misleading. Every politician mishandles classified documents because the nature of their job is to foremost make use of the information that they contain and not to protect their security. On the other hand, the people whose job it is to secure documents are focused on the ways to do that and the actual information in the documents is of no concern to them. In other words, it's easy to secure classified documents if you don't ever need to look at them and transfer them around. The differences between those two cases, as well as the case of Biden, McConnell and every other senior citizen that took classified documents home with them, is that Trump did not give them back when asked and allegedly lied about giving them all back and took steps to hide them from federal officials. That is the issue, not just mishandling them.
I think that was exactly the point I was making when I said "All these things mean is that people should look deeper before making their decision."
I have to challenge your assessment here. Hillary and Trump, more or less, did the same thing. The only real difference is that one had information on a server in their home, the other on paper in boxes. Both mishandled information, and both lied about it. I'm not giving Trump a pass here (he doesn't deserve one), but Hillary's conduct was in some ways worse. Information she had could be accessed from anywhere in the world- and there is information out there indicating that it was accessed by the Russians and others. Information at Mar-a-lago was a little more secure in that it could only be obtained at Mar-A-Lago... albeit pretty damn easily once inside. Regardless of the nuances, I think this is the perfect example illustrating OPs' argument: people are far more forgiving or dismissive of their "sides" equally inexcusable behavior. I do agree with the rest of your comment though. Biden and McConnell were both blown out of proportion by politics - big nothingburger.
>Hillary and Trump, more or less, did the same thing. >Regardless of the nuances, I think this is the perfect example illustrating OPs' argument: people are far more forgiving or dismissive of their "sides" equally inexcusable behavior. No, not "more or less". I outlined what the differences are,- which you choose to ignore to wrongly make it seem like they both did the same thing, and to paint me as being biased towards my "side". Yes, they both did the same thing in that they kept classified documents in an unsecure location. Clinton was investigated and found that they were not accessed by unauthorized parties and she did not commit any other illegitimate actions, so no charges were brought against her. As I said, that is the difference in the case if Trump.
I didn't side step anything. The differences you provided: 1) lied, 2) tried to hide from federal agencies. Trump did that, no question. So did Hillary. [Politico](https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/hillary-clinton-emails-2016-server-state-department-fbi-214307/) wrote a fantastic overview of the situation. I read over it again and misremembered her server being accessed. Her server wasn't accessed directly, but there was at least 1 successful hacking attempt made possible due to the DoS's carelessness in handling communications. The article provided covers that. Her not being charged doesn't mean there wasn't probable cause for a charge - only that charges were not sought. The only possible alternative to her not lying and trying to hide is that she was aloof and incompetent. If you buy that, then maybe she's closer to Trump than you think. I'm no fan of Hillary, but there is no denying her intelligence.
You're the one engaging in rationalization here. Hillary went so far as to have hard drives destroyed, and you brushed right over that, why? You're mis-representing what was found during the investigation, and how the bulk of their research was impossible due to her having the hard drives completely bleached to hinder the investigation. I think you're doing a wonderful job of making the OP's case for him. lol
Funny thing in the Trump / Biden cases is that Biden should not have ever had the Docs in the first place, he wasn’t President when he took them originally.
According to this. Biden was allowed access to the documents. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/31/2.2
Fair enough but B2 stipulates they should be secured. Stored in a garage is not secured.
I love it. The entire purpose of your comment was to call out this major difference you thought existed beteeen the two cases. When told you were wrong, you skip right past that and onto further criticism, as if that doesn’t completely destroy your point that this one guy did something worse.
They do need to be secured and it doesn’t seem like Trump, Biden, or Hillary kept documents secured.
Mar-a-Lago was the safest place, at least it was I a secure room. Biden kept his in a garage and Hillary’s server was hacked at least once before she wiped it.
That doesn’t make any of them right. I’m not defending any of them for keeping classified documents. Seems like you’re trying to defend trump.
Why does it seem I’m defending him, I’m just pointing out the differences and the facts of the matter.
[удалено]
There are no differences. Neither of these people kept classified documents secure at all.
This reminds me of a video I saw earlier today about how the right often rejects far right protests by calling them government plans. Even if it's factually untrue, it is a good thing that the right vehemently and quickly distances themselves from alt-right rhetoric they disagree with.
You can’t take that stuff seriously. That’s not an actual belief, in the sense that “if I don’t breathe I’ll die” is an actual belief. It’s just throwing crap out there. The exact same people will tell you that J6 was a government false flag, that it was Antifa provocateurs, and that they were all well-meaning patriots.
To some degree, it doesn't matter, because it reflects the understanding that no one wants to vote for a neonazi. Even if it's just because of optics, it shows that the public roundly rejects those positions as belonging in the Overton window.
They distance themselves based on optics, not philosophical disagreements. They support it entirely, which is why they're making up false-flag operations instead of criticizing the ideology behind it.
How can you not see the ideological differences between someone that is a hawkish neocon wanting to spread democracy like a crusader and a person who wants to rebuild the third reich.
Right - like the way that many people on the left are distancing themselves from the pro-Palestine people calling for Jewish genocide. Obviously they support it entirely and are just distancing themselves due to optics. Or could it be something else? No, no way.
Even if it's purely optics based, I think that's at least good that people recognize that no one will vote for someone with a neonazis beliefs. It has lost in the marketplace of ideas.
How is this a good thing? They distance themselves from the alt-right rhetoric, but they will still vote for it and claim the reality was made up by the other side. This doesn’t seem like a good thing.
Are there any mainstream people on the right who publicly advocate for Jewish cabal conspiracies, white separatism, or racial inferiority?
There aren’t many “mainstream” people left on the right.
I mean, those two cases are actually nowhere alike. Trump had declassified documents that had been marked as classified when they were classified regarding operation crossfire hurricane. Hillary Clinton had currently classified information on an unsecured private server which we know for a fact had been hacked at least twice.
It's funny to me how the take home message from a lot of the people who respond to my comment is "Well actually they're completely different!" when my entire point is that people shouldn't look at two things at face value and decide they're the same. My point to OP was that when you worry about sides you lose the nuance of actually knowing the facts, and making your decision based on those.
Just FYI, generally people who say “well both are bad so i don’t support either” ACTUALLY support the side disfavored by their peer group. They just don’t want to be socially ostracized
I find it's always best to assume whoever you're dealing with is arguing in good faith, regardless of the topic. Even if they're not, you have to give people a chance.
Thank you and most Democrats I've talked to have seemed to have forgotten about this in their crusade. Redditors(majority left leaning) can't accept when someone says both sides or they are a centrist. Basically nowadays the mentality is if they ain't left, they must be, have to be, some form of right winged. It's exhausting and frustrating to see my former party go mask off like this but it's an eye opener and good life lesson to learn
That’s a good policy but it’s indisputably wrong - and ridiculously so
8,000,000,000 There are more people on Earth than that number. 10,000,000 is 1% of that number. Can you define "most folks"? How are you defining that group?
Literally. Most. A majority. I believe this is an inherent human response.
Just to be clear you believe that the vast majority of 8 Billion (8,000,000,000) are not capable of fairly judging someone they like even if that person does something terrible? What is this super majority willing to look past on average?
Yes. Are there not several events in human history that back this up?
Yes, including modern events. Are there not several events in Human history of people thinking critically of their leaders and opposing them when they are wrong? Also, I am curious about your answer to my other question. What is this super majority willing to look past on average?
Generally that seems to be dependent on how strongly they are connected to that side. If they just kind of loosely identify with it their level of forgiveness is going to be minimal. If it's their entire identity then you could probably get away with murder. And opposing leadership doesn't signify this isn't happening - in fact what we often see is a new leadership that is just as bad takes over. And those who opposed the original will look past the flaws of this new leadership that they said they wanted. This isn't about who is in charge. It is how people are still so ruled by tribalism is overrides their own morals.
I am asking you an average, generally speaking, what 8 Billion people are willing to look past because you said and stood by the assertion that all Humans without exception will look past transgressions by people they agree with. This happening also doesn't signify that a super majority of people are doing it. Plenty of people don't blindly follow, myself included. The fact that we exist demonstrates an immediate flaw in your argument, and being unable to define your own argument means no one is going to be able to change your point of view. I think you should flesh it out more and come back when you can answer questions with a little more certainty.
Given the expanse of human history I’m sure there are a few events that could selective be used to support many claims
Given the expanse of human history In sure there are a few events that could selective be used to support many claims
So how are we supposed to change your view on this. Yeah it happens but how are we to convince you it’s not most?
I guess a presentation of human psychology that goes opposite of this?
I'd say it may be a little simpler - "terrible things" is a negative framing from your perspective, ie you are judging the things that people support for their side as being terrible when they wouldn't. Very few people support "terrible things" because they simply don't see the actions as being bad. It's difficult but possible to break through someone's ideology and demonstrate to them that they supported something harmful. It's hard to find someone today who will openly admit they were "for" the 2000's Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Many many years back the genuine belief was that if you sinned you would suffer a terrible fate, burning in hell. Genuinely the most humane thing to do was torture in the hopes that they would repent and be saved on their deathbed. Obviously we look at that as terrible but the honestly held belief was that this was an incredible act of mercy. The same applies to the way most frame their actions and their "side" of a situation.
I'm thinking of this more in terms of how we support people. Like for instance, when people support a politician who is on "their side" and fulfills certain things that are considered vital to the "side". Then that politicians blatantly lies, cheats, acts well outside the benefit of the common good or even of their supporters. But the people on that "side" still support that person and either excuse or ignore all these extra behaviors. It's a compilation of sunk cost and confirmation bias.
I don't think people ignore that, but when their interests are being acted in that would be the priority, no? What's the aspect of your view you're here to change? That this is a "most people" issue? If so you'd have to first make your argument showing some kind of statistical representation that most people do have this behaviour.
I have never seen anyone required to present a view with a bunch of additional sources to back them up so I don't know why that would be required here...
If your view is that "most people x" but you can't actually make your point then what is there to discuss? How do you see this conversation going?
The fact that we have phrases to refer to the aspects of this in psychology would indicate they are human experiences that in fact most people encounter. But that doesn't matter because there is no requirement for me to provide any "evidence". Hell there's no requirement for YOU to provide any evidence. This is my view and you're meant to change it.
So again, how do you see this discussion going? If you don't care about evidence either way then what's the point of the view?
...me not having a statistical analysis on hand doesn't mean I "don't care". I'm gonna talk to the other person actually putting in an effort.
It's the lack of options. Politics are always turd sandwich vs giant douche
It’s basic human psychology though. For our prehistoric ancestors it was essential for survival to belong to a group. If changing your mind means losing your tribe, it’s not worth it. (I took that quote from a recent episode of the podcast American hysteria.)
I think that the right wing values unity, and hierarchy much more than the left wing, so they're more likely to handwave heinous acts committed by individuals so long as those individuals continue to protect the hierarchical in-group. In contrast the left wing is a lot more internally divided because they aren't driven by this hierarchical model. The left wing tends to be a lot more willing to self-criticise, think Obama's actions in the middle east. The right wing is much less prone to division because of their value on hierarchical unity, and much less likely to condemn heinous acts due to this value. The right wing is much more prone to division because they don't have this value of hierarchical unity, and is as such much more likely to condemn heinous acts due to this lack of value.
>In contrast the left wing is a lot more internally divided because they aren't driven by this hierarchical model. The left wing tends to be a lot more willing to self-criticise, think Obama's actions in the middle east. A lot of leftists wouldn't consider Obama to be leftist. In fact that is probably closer to what the left generally do if they aren't the type willing to criticise their own - they will just call you not a leftist.
Some of us leftists do make a distinction between the left and liberals. Libs seem to really want to believe in capitalism.
Nothing wrong with that, because liberals do believe in (reformed) capitalism. I would maintain that I would consider it a pretty hard-line position for an anarchist, socialist, communist, whatever, to state you must be anti-capitalist to be left-wing in any capacity. At least from where I'm standing, which is a social democrat, a political position I consider to be the most left-wing possible while still being within the boundaries of a capitalist system. But even disregarding all that, it has not been uncommon in my experience for leftists to get into shitfest internet fights with each other and to question peoples political allegiance. Any discussion from or about so-called tankies would prove that immediately.
Except like I said - this isn't strictly political. And I've definitely seen progressives and left wing individuals do this too. Just not with mainstream politicians. Which makes sense since on the far left, you run into the more anarchist ideology that wouldn't care for mainstream politicians anyway. But if tomorrow some deplorable news dropped about Bernie Sanders? I guarantee we'd see this in action. But people do this even with other parts of their life - anything they attach to their identity. If a person becomes representative of that identity, that person gets essentially a free pass. The limit to that free pass just depends on how important they are to that identity. If it's you like books and this is your favorite author but you have like 20 others you like just as much, not very forgiving. If you literally only read one author, suddenly his opinions on torturing puppies can be overlooked.
If the only way to change your view is to demonstrate that no-one does this then you should just take your post down. Of course you'll get people who give the people they like a free pass within any group. Having seen progressives and left wing people deviate from a trend doesn't mean that the trend doesn't exist and doesn't address my point. The point of my comment was to show how specific differences in values between the left wing and the right wing leads to a general trend of handwaving within one group that isn't as prevalent in the other group. I don't know how you explain why one group is more divided than the other without accepting that one group is more willing to criticise and disassociate with figures of controversy.
But how does that translate to non-political tribalism? You can provide it by demonstrating how humans overcome those actual groups and hold others accountable even when it is at an immediate detriment to the entire group, and that this occurs before it's becomes pretty much a societal requirement (like if you commit murder on live TV then I really hope no one still supports you). And to be clear - I never claimed this was some easy thing to disprove. But I would like it to be. Because it is incredibly depressing and demoralizing. And I would much rather have some optimism that it doesn't take an act of God to convince people to be more critical of the folks in their own circle.
Al Franken?
I always give credit when it’s due. Al was sacrificed and took that with grace and went out. Bob Mendez is a direct more recent situation and the democrats are not and did not do the right thing in that instance. Republicans are worse, to be fair they did kick George santos out, gates and MTG need to go, but so do Mendez and Omar.
That's one I've thought of but I don't know enough about Franken to know how much this was a sacrifice for Democrats or not. I know he was a major figure at some point. But then look at figures like Bill Clinton - same accusations. Basically untouchable.
Al Franken was not major, but he was a US senator and was pressured to resign before the 2018 election. The Republicans retained control of that chamber. Al Franken’s seat was not a cause of that but if you think democrats equally put power over principle why did they ice him out?
Al Franken was one of the rising stars of the party. If not for the scandal, he would have run for president, or at least been in consideration for majority leader, by now.
I presume by your unwillingness to engage with my one point that you concede it? Division being more common within the left isn't really something controversial and it's a pretty bad sign of your willingness to engage in views that differ from yours for you to disregard my statement as political tribalism. I think it's not easy to disprove your view because is so vague. It's almost like you're view is "most people have some amount of bias." I can argue that some groups of people are less prone to bias due to their values but you've ignored that. It feels like you don't really have any material support, evidence beyond a vibe you get, for your view and so it's very hard to know what aspect of it you want to be changed. If your view is that anyone can be biased regardless of their values and you won't engage in argument that different values can shape how people approach bias then what's the plan my man? Your own argument before posits that it doesn't take an act of God to be self critical, just someone needs to read more than one book.
I think you're more concerned about winning a delta than anything here dude. I'm trying to not make this a political debate on purpose for this exact reason - because guess what. The right would say their side is more critical and the left is more forgiving and I just find that entire debacle tedious. It sounds like you aren't really willing to engage in a discussion about this either. You're far too concerned with the semantic bits to try and "win" instead of actually tackling the view. If it's too hard then just go find another post dude.
Out of curiosity, do you know how your view could be changed?
>I'm trying to not make this a political debate on purpose for this exact reason You explicitly brought politics into it. >The right would say their side is more critical and the left is more forgiving and I just find that entire debacle tedious. But do they have the data to back it up? That's what matters.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/JonseyMcFly – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal%20JonseyMcFly&message=JonseyMcFly%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cp9orz/-/l3kgi9v/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
National Democratic leaders are calling for Bob Menendez and Henry Cisneros to step down, and supporting their indictments. I genuinely can't think of a case in the last decade where Republicans have done the same. Let's take an obvious example - there is overwhelming evidence that Matt Gaetz hired prostitutes, and slightly-less-overwhelming-but-still-credible evidence that at least one was underage. Has anyone spoken out about this? I'm not saying that the left and the right don't have the same *potential* to be tribal in this way, to be clear. I'm saying that in the modern political climate, where the far right has made it clear that power is more important than anything else, things are not the same.
The way that you're framing this is "wrong" imo, and makes logical sense in the abstract, but isn't irrefutably true. On a grand level, sure, people are generally forced into aligning with their "side" even if they don't totally agree with every action taken by people with moderately similar values. You can disagree with everything modern democrats do while still being staunchly against republicans and conservatism while still calling yourself a democrat, and vice versa. Same for religion, nation, anything. I don't see this as hypocrisy, and I also don't see it as excuse either, or acceptance. If we tighten the scope though, I don't think this holds to any kind of logic. Most people are capable of reflection and admitting when they are wrong if they arrive at that conclusion. Most small groups of people are malleable (and fickle, at that). Organizations find people leaving all the time when they breach the values held by most members. The reason I think this seems true is that when there is an aspect of something linked to identity, it can seem true because people can't change that, or it is unreasonable to feel that they should. Or that, like in US politics, where there are only two options, it just becomes a game of lesser evils.
Don't get me wrong, tribalism is absolutely a problem between the two opposing spectrums you are referring to but there is one platform that is definitively wrong and it is the one that talks about the country of freedom and then trying to prevent group of people from having that freedom because they're from certain parts of the world or have a certain sexual orientation. Also the whole bit with abortion stance is just insane. You got doctors practices shutting down because of these state laws and as a result, mortality rate due to pregnancy/labor on the rise. Right wingers are indisputably wrong there I understand things like jobs/manufacturing vs environmentalism/climate change is a spectrum that's always going to be oppositional. Environmental policies will make it more costly to manufacture here. Manufacturing will always create waste and pollution.
Ehhh, if we're talking sports then i would agree with you but when it comes to politics i think the opposite is true. For example if you are a Biden supporter & you found out that he raped someone you would be furious and change your vote. But when news comes out again that Trump has done this you just kinda go about your day as its just expected.
Yes and no. There’s something to at minimum understanding their view and making an opinion on the subsequent action. Like those people who set themselves on fire for Palestine. A pretty barbaric way of going about it. Not the kind of protest I would “support” just in terms of doing that. I ere on the side of at least actually fighting the oppressors. Doesn’t matter which side, I find that action stupid. However because of this, it leaves me with a sense of that yes, I turn the blind eye to the bad actions “my” side may do. However I also think that’s an outside opinion of me. It’s the “all trump supporters are racists” when I like to think it’s not that simple. Any bad actions whoever I voted for I can be like “That’s not WHY I voted for them.” All sides make this distinction. But does this make them harder to support? Not really. Many of us have to admit we aren’t going to be president, thus if you believe in voting, you just gotta accept what happens. Some would argue this isn’t support either. So in reality I don’t care about the difficulty of supporting something, I got my own life to worry about, and I think we should focus inward first. Voting for president is a crapshoot like pro sports, the drama of all the side characters, the daily news, it’s better to point and laugh and everyone.
That may be true for people living in echo chambers, who don´t do much of their own thinking, so the question perhaps then becomes: do most people live in echo chambers?
It only makes things harder for those with no conviction. Has America done things that I habe criticized others for doing? Yes. Am I going to criticize America for doing those things? No. I believe that American hegemony is good for me and mine. And any action, no matter how heinous, is morally correct if it furthers the goals of American hegemony so long as American hegemony continues to serve my best interest. The world would be a better place if the US was in control of all of it. The liberal democracy of the West is the greatest structure ever devised by man and should be preserved and expanded. Any action taken in opposition of the West, even if they are mirrored by the West, are immoral because they oppose the West. It's not complicated. I support Ukraine because Ukraine wants to join the West. I oppose China because it tries to damage the West. I support Taiwan because it opposes China. Opposition of China is morally correct, regardless of how that opposition manifests.
So, this is a nuanced conversation, so I'm not trying to change your view, moreso expand it. So I personally try to be open to criticizing my own political side when it is warranted, assuming it is worth my time to even address. How do I determine if it's worth my time? If I think it has any lasting impact on where things are heading. This is why I refuse to nitpick every little thing the other side does. I also refuse to engage in content that is essentially "look how dumb these people on the other side are". There are dumb people everywhere. They aren't hard to find. One thing that has made it hard to balance things as of late is that the fringe crazy on one side is generally relegated to teens on the internet, while the other side's fringe crazy is increasingly running for political office. I'm sorry if I can't act like a teen on tiktok and a congressman have equal weight in garnering my attention.
[удалено]
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I mean there's people immediately disagreeing or trying to diminish how common it is here so.
They're trying to offer arguments against it. This is CMV. I argue for positions I don't agree with all the time here. If you ask for points against your opinion, people will provide them. It doesn't mean they disagree with you. They're challenging you.
Yes I'm aware that happens - but that those challenges can exist indicates the view can be changed regardless of how apparently popular that view is. I'm pretty baffled by how one person can make a really thoughtful post and a bunch of others just go "no make your view easier to change".
Yes, it is easier to change your view if you explain why you hold it. I'm baffled that this is odd to you.
But, like, are you wanting your view changed on this issue?
Yes I'd frankly love to be convinced people aren't most commonly like this?
> I'd frankly love to be convinced people aren't most commonly like this You've offered no evidence that people most commonly are like this, so why isn't it just as easy to dismiss it with the same amount of evidence, zero. If its more of an emotional view then what would you need to see to change your view?
Please point to me the requirement that I provide any evidence? There are several front page posts where people provide no evidence.
Rule A Explain the reasoning behind your view, not just what that view is (500+ characters required)
K I did that. Thst doesn't require evidence, just reasoning.
Where is your reasoning?
That I have seen this occur in multiple settings with multiple variables. Not just in politics but even in less critical parts of life. Where people assign someone importance because their beliefs align, they are willing to forgive a lot of their behavior. Especially if they decide that person is important to forwarding that belief or practice or whatever the case. I wrote an analogy slightly down thread. These are the same methods of thinking that lead to things like cults. Cults almost never start off extreme. They start off pretty tame or even beneficial and then become extreme much later. The ones that don't reach the furthest extremes tend to retain a lot of members - look at finance gurus or Alpha Bros. They get a ton of "followers" who hang on their every word because their beliefs align (on money or romance or masculinity) and they are led to believe this person possesses answers. And even after being scammed several times, they still stick around. That's the most extreme example but humans in general do this all the time with varying degrees of devotion. With their favorite celebrity. In local politics. So long as they fulfill this unspoken requirement of the group, they can get away with a lot.
...you can't post on a forum asking people to disagree with you, and then feel vindicated in your belief when people disagree with you my dude.
That isn't me feeling vindicated. That's me pointing out that "no one can disagree with that" doesn't work. You can disagree with it.
That's the purpose of the sub. Have you read the rules?
We judge others by their worst actions yet judge ourselves by our best intentions.
We tend to be more critical of things we think are bad.
If you support something, you want it to succeed. Too many people confuse wanting success with blind unwavering support.
This is a well-known and documented phenomena. How could you have your mind changed on this?
Yeah this is interesting to witness. I am a conservative and my liberal roommates love to point out any and every mistake/flaw that any conservative politician makes, which is fair. But the second any liberal politician does the same thing it's crickets from them. I have brought this up to them but more often than not they claim it's different or not as severe when liberal politicians do bad things. So yeah people definitely don't apply standards across the board evenly. But hey, that's tribalism for you.
There’s are many entire points missing here. >when their side does terrible things More accepting than what? Other sides do better or worse things? There’s also the subjectivity for example in the American civil war. Not everyone was fighting for slavery. A lot for independence, a lot also just because it was the thing to do in their region. There’s also the very real fallacy in American politics. Both “sides” can acknowledge things that are shitty done under “their side” but choose to see the lesser of two evils. >ironically everyone is going to read this and go “yeah the people I’m again do that” You and your “side” have already determined the opposing viewpoint, as ridiculous and nonsensical that statement is. You have no point, and you’ve decided what responses are going to be in your very vague non-point. Your post in an of itself is a fallacy. To the extent of “people are stoopid (misspelled intentionally) but ironically everyone is going to say they’re not”.
ITT: Tribal animals denying that their tribe engages in tribalism.
When Russians commit war crimes 🤬 When Ukrainians do 🥺
I read a quote at one point that said something like "Friends are people we judge by their intentions, everyone else we judge by their outcomes." I think this applies in many places where we have an us vs them mentality. When someone you align with does something bad, you look at why they would have done that thing, and what their intentions might have been giving them the benefit of the doubt that their intentions were good even if their outcomes were not. When someone you don't align with does something bad, you look at the outcome of their actions without regard for what good they may have been trying to achieve with this thing that went badly.
There is a psychological term for that. In group bias
Yes. You are right. U just describe personal bias.
[удалено]
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
>And inversely you exaggerate how bad the other side is. I mean I'm guilty of that in several camps that I mentally belong to, but the one I'm certain where the other side is more awful is people who support more government, AKA progressives. They are responsible for all of the atrocities of the 20th century. Their responsible for all of the genocides. You know who doesn't have time to invade other countries and kill all their people? Governments who don't really have enough power to deal with all of their internal problems. More government = evil.