Why "Hearing Both Sides" Is Dangerous
Added 2022-11-23 21:56:50 +0000 UTCHowdy, friends! Ever get tired of people claim we need to "hear both sides" and "respect opposing opinions"? I know I do. While it's perfectly normal for people to have different ideas, sometimes those ideas are not organic. And sometimes they actively destroy our chances for a livable future. Hope you enjoy!
Comments
Absolutely love this episode. We need more of these types of zooming in on apparently good ideas that are actually breaking our society. Another one would be 40hr work week or work until pension or paying taxes vs big companies or rich people not doing that.
Adolfo
2022-12-22 09:00:19 +0000 UTCI agree that seeing both sides to something and formulating an opinion can be extremely beneficial when it comes to most things, and I also think that when it comes to other things like fascism for example, a movement that aims to destroy everything else, that wants to kill the right to choose any other path, that wants to impose something so violent and that goes against other people's freedoms, it's harmful to even let it have a platform of any kind. Because it does not in itself want other sides to exist. So it shouldn't be given any time at all and should be destroyed completely. & I agree with your statement, the US is so terrified of socialism that it does its best to kill anything that might paint it in a better (or even just truthful) light.
tala
2022-12-19 16:03:30 +0000 UTCPlease don't start a reply with "uh...no." It's dismissive and disrespectful. Reread your first sentence without it; it's much better.
AustinTim
2022-11-30 15:07:19 +0000 UTCI also don't like the title of the video, but the video itself is excellent. Perhaps "When" instead of "Why" in the title? In my personal life, I always try to see both sides. That doesn't mean I think they're equally valid, but I have to give both sides a hearing in order to see where I stand myself. Otherwise I'm just blindly following something or someone -- even an ideology. I totally agree though with the criticism of the lazy habit of journalists to choose two opposing views, give equal time to them, and claim they're being "fair". Giving equal time suggests equal validity. Inherently, the capitalist press knows this, which is why socialist ideas are not given equal time.
AustinTim
2022-11-30 15:00:30 +0000 UTCAlso, I wonder if we can use the “open marketplace of ideas” to arrange a debate between a socialist and a capitalist on a major platform like the climate example. This could help portray socialism as an equally viable alternative to capitalism on the mainstream
Alex Tam
2022-11-28 20:00:48 +0000 UTCI think that the title is a little more aggressive than necessary and runs the risk of giving off the wrong impression. I agree that two sides are not always equally valid and sometimes one side is obviously more correct. I just think you need to emphasize more the difference between having diversity of opinions and sources vs letting misleading arguments / disinformation fly around the media. Like I think on each issue there can be a number of valid arguments that deserve a platform as well as some BS arguments that do not
Alex Tam
2022-11-28 19:58:58 +0000 UTCBroadly speaking, I think a platform can be any form of mass dissemination like social media.
darwinstar
2022-11-28 14:21:34 +0000 UTCUh....no. I think you're arguing about the clickbait title rather than the real point about being unbiased. Also, I don't think you live in the US. Otherwise, you'd understand his argument. You don't know the history of how we arrived at this moment--or how power operates in the "marketplace of ideas." This is why the left in the US has been largely unsuccessful....and why January 6th happened. If you want to know what I mean by "platform," I encourage you to watch The Great Hack or The Social Dilemma. Freedom without justice is hollow and dangerous. As a black, queer man living in the US, that's abundantly clear to me!
darwinstar
2022-11-28 14:13:08 +0000 UTCCertainly, it's imperative to hear "both sides" or every side. I'm curious, in terms of practicality, what's the mentioned "platform"?
Illias
2022-11-27 17:01:35 +0000 UTCWhat do you mean by "platform"? > If one argument is built on a faulty series of premises, then, no, it does not deserve a platform One erroneous argument is not the whole side. If one side has 1 out of 10 arguments wrong, that's no reason not to listen to that side. You are reducing everything from the general to the particular. > Even courts make determinations about the merits of an argument, which can be rendered baseless. Of course, the only thing is that in order to reach that conclusion they listen to those arguments before doing so. > Otherwise, what you're doing is creating the conditions for rampant mis/disinformation, and as the video powerfully points out This is exactly an example of the wrong conclusion.
Artem
2022-11-27 11:06:40 +0000 UTCHearing both sides is not the same as a platform, which is a critical distinction. If one argument is built on a faulty series of premises, then, no, it does not deserve a platform. Even courts make determinations about the merits of an argument, which can be rendered baseless. Otherwise, what you're doing is creating the conditions for rampant mis/disinformation, and as the video powerfully points out, is supported by powerful interests. If you've never watched The Great Hack or The Social Dilemma, I highly recommend that you do.
darwinstar
2022-11-27 00:10:50 +0000 UTCFirst time I disagree. In politics, both sides must be heard, as in a court of law. Otherwise we will come again to an dictature.
Artem
2022-11-26 19:41:08 +0000 UTCmagnificent
Grimwater
2022-11-25 23:38:36 +0000 UTCWhen you said you were ending on an MLK quote, I knew it would be this one. I've been using it fairly often, too.
justjukka
2022-11-25 23:09:56 +0000 UTCThank you!
Luree Ality
2022-11-25 08:37:52 +0000 UTCI really needed this today thanks!
Tc tiffany
2022-11-24 18:47:53 +0000 UTCan incredibly necessary video before the holidays. at least when deaning with my family lol
Nick Lozier
2022-11-24 04:25:39 +0000 UTCExcellent explanation as always, I forget who said halfway between fascism and democracy is still too close to fascism but it's applicable here.
James Curtiss
2022-11-23 22:13:35 +0000 UTC
