There's almost always a both sides, or even infinite positions on complex topics. With the election it's pretty straightforward, either you believe in the system or you don't, but the other examples you mentioned have tons of nuance to discuss when it comes to policy. What exactly do you do about climate change? And what about vaccines? Should you take all of them? Should everybody be forced to take all of them? What happens to you if you refuse? How about people with negative reactions to some vaccines? What about when certain vaccines were found to have severe side effects and were later removed? There's risk/benefit to be discussed and the question isn't nearly as simple as right and wrong. This is true for most topics, and assuming that one political party embodies the truth on every topic, that's it's the best approach for every person, is naive at best. There must be discussion, at least a progressive voice and a conservative one in order to avoid stagnation in the latter and over reaction in the former.
Nah, one side demonstrated over and over that they're not interested in a good faith discussion and won't compromise. After the x-th debate with climate change deniers the media should stop giving them attention.
When you say "one side" what exactly are you referring to? Maybe that will help.
All of your questions about vaccines have nothing to do with the both-sides-ism in the media where they bring someone on who says vaccines work and another person on who says it doesn't.
Why are you not aware of this? You're on c/news so you must be a news consumer...
There is truth and there is fiction. Being a conservative or a progressive has no reflection on what is true and what is not, no matter how much the media (and you apparently) want to think otherwise.
Progressive and conservative are two different approaches for policy. If the truth is known then there is no point discussing it. If the truth is unclear or the implications of that truth are unclear, then there needs to be discussion.
Your example about both sidesism, bringing on an anti vaxxer, is either a deliberate straw man or a minor example that isn't a good representative of the media trying to discuss both sides.
But your last point I agree with completely. Neither progressives nor conservatives have the complete truth.
Your example about both sidesism, bringing on an anti vaxxer, is either a deliberate straw man or a minor example that isn’t a good representative of the media trying to discuss both sides.
It happened constantly during COVID. Where were you?
And now we have two antivaxxers running for president. One with a good chance of winning. And they get to talk about their "side" in the news too. Often unchallenged.
I don't know how you can not be aware of this.
But your last point I agree with completely. Neither progressives nor conservatives have the complete truth.
That's not what I said. It's also wrong.
It is completely true that global warming is happening and humans are the cause no matter how much conservatives want to deny it.
Ok, so everything conservatives stand for is wrong? And everything progressives stand for is objective truth? Or are you only referring to climate change?
Also Trump is not an anti vaxxer. Don't you remember "Operation warp speed"? Maybe you should find more variety in your news sources.
Also, discussions during COVID regarding school closures and vaccine mandates are not the same as denying vaccine efficacy. I hope you aren't confusing those issues. Yes I'm sure there were anti vaxxers on the news from time to time, but you seem to think it was super common. That's not what I remember at all.
Ok, so everything conservatives stand for is wrong? And everything progressives stand for is objective truth?
I’ve seen people where they have a perfectly healthy child, and they go for the vaccinations, and a month later the child is no longer healthy,” he said on Fox in 2012. “It happened to somebody that worked for me recently. I mean, they had this beautiful child, not a problem in the world. And all of a sudden, they go in, they get this monster shot. You ever see the size of it? It’s like they’re pumping in—you know, it’s terrible, the amount. And they pump this into this little body. And then all of the sudden, the child is different a month later. And I strongly believe that’s it.
"Operation Warp Speed" was over 4 years ago. He's figured out since then that his fans don't like vaccines.
Actually you are probably right about him shifting. There are a lot more anti vaxxers now, after COVID, than there were before.
we have two antivaxxers running for president.
we do? i don't think so... who?
I guess you've never heard of Donald Trump and RFK, Jr.
Donald Trump ran operation warp speed, and I frankly hadn't been following rfk at all
I already covered this in a reply that was done four hours before yours, so I don't know why you didn't see it. Trump was an antivaxxer before Operation Warp Speed and he has become one again.
There's almost always a both sides, or even infinite positions on complex topics. With the election it's pretty straightforward, either you believe in the system or you don't, but the other examples you mentioned have tons of nuance to discuss when it comes to policy. What exactly do you do about climate change? And what about vaccines? Should you take all of them? Should everybody be forced to take all of them? What happens to you if you refuse? How about people with negative reactions to some vaccines? What about when certain vaccines were found to have severe side effects and were later removed? There's risk/benefit to be discussed and the question isn't nearly as simple as right and wrong. This is true for most topics, and assuming that one political party embodies the truth on every topic, that's it's the best approach for every person, is naive at best. There must be discussion, at least a progressive voice and a conservative one in order to avoid stagnation in the latter and over reaction in the former.
Nah, one side demonstrated over and over that they're not interested in a good faith discussion and won't compromise. After the x-th debate with climate change deniers the media should stop giving them attention.
When you say "one side" what exactly are you referring to? Maybe that will help.
All of your questions about vaccines have nothing to do with the both-sides-ism in the media where they bring someone on who says vaccines work and another person on who says it doesn't.
Why are you not aware of this? You're on c/news so you must be a news consumer...
There is truth and there is fiction. Being a conservative or a progressive has no reflection on what is true and what is not, no matter how much the media (and you apparently) want to think otherwise.
Progressive and conservative are two different approaches for policy. If the truth is known then there is no point discussing it. If the truth is unclear or the implications of that truth are unclear, then there needs to be discussion.
Your example about both sidesism, bringing on an anti vaxxer, is either a deliberate straw man or a minor example that isn't a good representative of the media trying to discuss both sides.
But your last point I agree with completely. Neither progressives nor conservatives have the complete truth.
It happened constantly during COVID. Where were you?
And now we have two antivaxxers running for president. One with a good chance of winning. And they get to talk about their "side" in the news too. Often unchallenged.
I don't know how you can not be aware of this.
That's not what I said. It's also wrong.
It is completely true that global warming is happening and humans are the cause no matter how much conservatives want to deny it.
Ok, so everything conservatives stand for is wrong? And everything progressives stand for is objective truth? Or are you only referring to climate change?
Also Trump is not an anti vaxxer. Don't you remember "Operation warp speed"? Maybe you should find more variety in your news sources.
Also, discussions during COVID regarding school closures and vaccine mandates are not the same as denying vaccine efficacy. I hope you aren't confusing those issues. Yes I'm sure there were anti vaxxers on the news from time to time, but you seem to think it was super common. That's not what I remember at all.
Did I say that? I did not.
As for Trump not being an anti-vaxxer:
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/4517350-trump-vaccine-rhetoric-public-health/
https://thehill.com/homenews/4059468-trump-wont-say-if-covid-vaccines-work-not-a-great-thing-to-talk-about-as-a-republican/
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/donald-trump-covid-19-vaccines-children
It's not even just COVID vaccines:
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/06/donald-trump-science-climate-change-vaccines-autism-ebola/
"Operation Warp Speed" was over 4 years ago. He's figured out since then that his fans don't like vaccines.
Actually you are probably right about him shifting. There are a lot more anti vaxxers now, after COVID, than there were before.
we do? i don't think so... who?
I guess you've never heard of Donald Trump and RFK, Jr.
Donald Trump ran operation warp speed, and I frankly hadn't been following rfk at all
I already covered this in a reply that was done four hours before yours, so I don't know why you didn't see it. Trump was an antivaxxer before Operation Warp Speed and he has become one again.
https://lemmy.world/comment/8963958
I know this might be hard to believe, but Trump is a hypocrite.
As for RFK, Jr. He literally made a name for himself by supporting the "vaccines cause autism" lie.
I wasnt going to vote for either of them anyway....
I'm not sure how who you are going to vote for is relevant to what I was saying. This isn't about you.
No