I feel that "both/all sides are bad"-type positions don't get enough (constructive) criticism

[Quillion]

I'd like to preface this post by saying that yes, there is a place for that sort of thing. It's good to put forth a similar statement when the debate has degenerated into a big shouting match of hate and toxicity, and then just leave it there.

But I think there's a discussion to be had in how "both sides suck" types of people are romanticized as "free thinkers" who are above the "bandwagoning sheep". And this applies to a lot of debates in general, whether that be political debates, wokeness debates, or even just gaming discourse. Honestly, "both sides suck" statements these days have been diluted from a plea to stop a toxicity contest into a big sign that says, "Look, I think I'm better than everybody here".

And really, how much do these statements really contribute to a debate? People who subscribe to "both sides suck" tend to focus on how both sides are being toxic, but that's also dismissive of how both sides have good or reasonable people in them. And the good people on either side are either contributing to the discussion or getting things done. Meanwhile, "both sides suck" guys are like "everyone is stupid, and I'm totally not", so they don't even contribute to any debate at all, just a meta-debate that's only tangentially related at best.

It feels like borderline vigilantism in a lot of cases. If anything, I just think that "both/all sides suck" statements need to be used a lot less lightly, or if there is a legitimate position in that statement, give some in-depth reasoning behind it instead of "because everyone on all sides is being stupid".

 

[StoicPhantom]

This is one of those examples where perception is everything. Rejecting binary thinking and false premises is something we should all be doing but I've had people accuse me of being exactly what you describe. There are people who engage in binary thinking that feel superior to others by simply saying that both sides are bad and pretending there's some sort of middle ground. You are absolutely right in everything you say when it comes to these types of people.

The main difference comes less down to the choices presented and more about the framing of the question itself. If neither side seems adequate it might simply be the framing of the question or topic is wrong.


For example, the constant debate over taxes and whether they're necessary or not. Some say that taxation is a form of theft and ultimately a hindrance to markets. Others would say that taxes are necessary to prevent monopolization and oligarchy. Taxes don't work because they are controlled by the government. Taxes would work if we just put the right people in charge. That kind of debate.

And it's endless because both sides are right and wrong at the same time. It is absolutely true that without taxation we would have monopolization and oligarchy. The current era of extreme wealth disparity and corporate control proves that. It is also true that you will never get proper enforcement or be able to prevent corruption in the regulatory bodies and taxation becomes completely one-sided with it burdening the poor far more.

Where they're both wrong isn't in their arguments (well, not all of them) but in their framing. To tax or not shouldn't be the question or topic. Whether or not government is responsible for handling Capitalism's inherent contradictions should have been the first question. The problem of oligarchy and monopoly is inherent to the idea of allowing a few private entities to control the means of production. The problem of taxation as a regulatory measure is that it contradicts Capitalism's incentive to encourage competition. Why would one put all that time, effort, and investment (risk-taking) into something that will ultimately be taken away from them by mandate is a valid inquiry. How are we going to encourage competition when extremely wealthy entities can just buy or forcefully shut out their competition is another valid inquiry.

The fundamental problem with this debate is that it is generally had between factions of Capitalism and thus it is just implicitly agreed upon that Capitalism is here to stay and what to do about managing it is the working framing. However, this debate is on fundamental contradictions that cannot be resolved with regulation, be it free market or government. It is ultimately a pointless debate because there's nothing you can do about a broken system in the first place.


And as you can see, the problem with that debate is the framing rather than taking a particular side. There some that are trapped in binary thinking but don't feel like either side adequately solves the problem that might try to take a centrist position. They will of course never be able to actually come up with a coherent argument but it will make them feel like they're above the fray. But you cannot take a position between government or free market regulation. I've seen capitalists try to say that government does some things better than the free market and vice versa, but I've not seen any convincing arguments that you can actually neatly split them like this. Those social democracies in Europe that are often pointed to are currently falling apart as an example.

Always question the framing or topic before you do anything else. That incredibly embarrassing topic about sexualization in character design on this board badly needed to question why it was inherently bad before certain users tried to make excuses like it would distract male opponents.