People “fall for it” because the both teams bad narrative helps the super bad team seem less super bad in comparison.
If the conversation appropriately punished the super bad the whenever they did something super bad, then maybe voters would actually overhwleming not vote them and force them to change. Instead, by assuming the super bad team will be super bad, we get more upset when the people we thought were good guys do something bad, and we don’t really give much conversation to the super bad team because we expected them to be evil.
Then, when its time to vote, someone can think “well both sides are evil but this one side did say something about an issue I care about, so I will vote them” and vote super bad and not feel too guilty about it.
I guess this yapping is to say the “both sides evil” narrative is really really bad in my eyes. I’m not feeling great today, sorry to take it out on this. Thanks for letting me yap.
Friend, even on my good days, I’m harsher than you were in this post lol. You’ve done nothing wrong on that front.
As for the rest. I understand where you’re coming from, I do understand why people want to believe that the Democratic Party are good guys or at least better than Republicans. Hell I still voted for Kamala in distaste because I do believe in harm reduction over absolutism. But it has always been a stop gap, a withered band-aid for wounds that need proper care.
The truth of the matter is, since before I could vote I’ve watched the Democrats roll over for Republicans. That’s over two decades of watching them give it up faster than JD Vance’s couch. At some point you recognize that pattern, and make whatever moves you can within it. That includes building up causes that address the wound more directly instead of constantly trying to keep using the same band-aid even as it becomes grosser and grosser.
I guess another way to put this is: Republicans are fire. You don’t put fire out with water because you hate fire, you put fire out with water because fire is a danger. Now let’s say you hire some people to put out those fires when they spring up, but instead when it comes time to fight fire, they just stand to the side, maybe even pour gasoline on some spots they think could burn more, or do performative things like splashing it with water when a hose is needed. Are those you hired good or bad? Is it worse to be the fire? Or to be the fire enablers?
One is a good cop, the other is a bad cop. But the good cop enables the bad cop. So both are still pigs.
Amazing how people can know of the whole “Good cop, bad cop” routine and still fall for it. It really is an effective tactic, even at scale.
People “fall for it” because the both teams bad narrative helps the super bad team seem less super bad in comparison.
If the conversation appropriately punished the super bad the whenever they did something super bad, then maybe voters would actually overhwleming not vote them and force them to change. Instead, by assuming the super bad team will be super bad, we get more upset when the people we thought were good guys do something bad, and we don’t really give much conversation to the super bad team because we expected them to be evil.
Then, when its time to vote, someone can think “well both sides are evil but this one side did say something about an issue I care about, so I will vote them” and vote super bad and not feel too guilty about it.
I guess this yapping is to say the “both sides evil” narrative is really really bad in my eyes. I’m not feeling great today, sorry to take it out on this. Thanks for letting me yap.
Friend, even on my good days, I’m harsher than you were in this post lol. You’ve done nothing wrong on that front.
As for the rest. I understand where you’re coming from, I do understand why people want to believe that the Democratic Party are good guys or at least better than Republicans. Hell I still voted for Kamala in distaste because I do believe in harm reduction over absolutism. But it has always been a stop gap, a withered band-aid for wounds that need proper care.
The truth of the matter is, since before I could vote I’ve watched the Democrats roll over for Republicans. That’s over two decades of watching them give it up faster than JD Vance’s couch. At some point you recognize that pattern, and make whatever moves you can within it. That includes building up causes that address the wound more directly instead of constantly trying to keep using the same band-aid even as it becomes grosser and grosser.
I guess another way to put this is: Republicans are fire. You don’t put fire out with water because you hate fire, you put fire out with water because fire is a danger. Now let’s say you hire some people to put out those fires when they spring up, but instead when it comes time to fight fire, they just stand to the side, maybe even pour gasoline on some spots they think could burn more, or do performative things like splashing it with water when a hose is needed. Are those you hired good or bad? Is it worse to be the fire? Or to be the fire enablers?