• nexussapphire@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      To each its own, this picking sides and fighting thing is counter productive and draws focus from the real issues.

      That’s just my stance, abolish all parties and let a man stand on his own merits proving that he will act on the promises he has made to his fellow man.

      • Laticauda@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It’s not counterproductive when one side wants to do horrible things to people like me and my friends and the other doesn’t. When one side actively endangers people and takes their rights away and the other doesn’t. Those are very, very real issues to a lot of people, and acting like that doesn’t matter at this point is just willful ignorance. You don’t have to identify with one side to openly disagree with the other. You can prefer a system without parties or teams without refusing to stand up against a team that already exists, whether you like it or not, and has made their horrible views very well known.

      • OwenEverbinde@lemmy.myserv.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Except there’s no need to hypothesize about what the “the other side” wants. They have been perfectly vocal about what they think are issues that need to be “solved”:

        • Accurate history lessons
        • Transgender people
        • Women’s ability to have deadly ectopic pregnancies removed
        • “Urban” people
        • The right to protest against the flag
        • Gay people

        If you have enough knowledge of history to know what a “final solution” looks like, you are justified in seeing “the other side” as the main problem.

      • BigNote@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        But since these are mutually exclusive propositions, only one side can actually be correct. Do you really think it’s more likely to be the science-denying conspiracy-minded side? The side that elected a transparent con man and buffoon, and appears to want to elect him again?