A different way (for me) of looking at the concept of "Both Sides" I've been pondering recently.

A hypothetical: You and I are straight. We're debating whether our gay friend should be allowed to marry his boyfriend. You're pro. I'm con.

Name both sides of this debate.
This is a very understandable way of framing the debate, and difficult to dispute. On one side, you're pro-love. On the other I'm anti-gay. Or maybe (if I'm con) I'd say I'm pro-tradition and you're virtue signalling.

But this frame misses a key point.

Notice, please, how this framing—the "both sides" of the debate—only contemplates you and me, straight people who will be, as a practical matter, unaffected either way the debate goes.

Notice how it completely takes our gay friend and his boyfriend out of the picture.
The REAL "both sides" of this particular debate are you and me, whose disagreement is merely philosophical in nature, and the real people who are being discussed as abstracts, in such a way that they aren't usually even seen as being on either of the "both sides" of the debate.
Think about the way that even framing things around a *debate* automatically does this—erases the real stakes for real people involved.

Think about the way framing any issue as "both sides" automatically does this—even erases those people from consideration.

It's by design.
Here's my theory: a lot of us have already agreed that EVERYBODY should have their basic humanity honored in all ways

We've already acknowledged our differences, but we're insisting that our shared humanity overrides that

That's not "one side," as some would have it. It's many
What really is a 'side,' practically/politically speaking, than a different perspective from a different lived experience?

Think of all the "sides" that are currently being lumped under the umbrella of one of only two "sides," simply for insisting on the shared humanity of all?
There are those who utilize debate to deny the basic humanity of all different types of people

They'd have it that our acknowledgement of our differences are what creates division and strife, rather than that denial

They want to be considered one of only two different "sides"
So on one "side" are straight and gay and trans and bi and black and white and brown and muslim and christian and able-bodied and disabled and ... on and on, all agreeing to understand each other, all trying to work it out for all of us ...

... and THAT is one of two "sides?"
That's not one of two "sides." That's infinite "sides," unified mostly by a willingness to set any differences aside in a shared acknowledgement that basic humanity overrides that

How can that "side" be living in an echo chamber or a bubble?

Think of how much there is to learn
To refuse to compromise on that shared acknowledgement that basic humanity overrides any differences isn't closed-minded.

It's refusing to close an open mind.

That shared acknowledgement is what keep the mind open to different perspectives from different lived experiences.
To refuse to acknowledge and recognize differences is another way of erasing them.

We don't need to refuse to see difference, but only to celebrate them.

And to bring this back to debate, to refuse any premise that would have it that our shared humanity doesn't override them.
If you allow that premise in debate, then you're contracting infinite uoppositional and co-relational "sides" down into only two oppositional ones, in a way that completely erases the humanity of the actual people being discussed.

That's not open-minded. It's just not.
Debate can be an excellent tool for curious people of good faith and intentions to refine ideas and come to new and better conclusions

But it makes a horrible and destructive competitive weapon

It shrinks the world to two sides

But humanity is infinite sides

And also only one
If you have a premise to debate, enjoy your debate—but watch the frame carefully.

Don't compromise our shared acknowledgement of the essential humanity of literally EVERYONE.

To do so is to have already surrendered the game.

/end
The examples are basically infinite. I used gay marriage as an example probably because a gay friend just got engaged (congrats!) and because I spent yesterday as one of the few cargo-shorted men at Pride.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with A.R. Moxon

A.R. Moxon Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @JuliusGoat

Feb 21
Gay kids will die because of this, which is the desired purpose of the bill.
To those who scold that we mustn’t assume evil intentions into the actions of people who consistently pursue absolute evil with steadfast dedication and unshakable resolve: yes, we should.
I guess the ultimate answer to "you don't know what their true motivations are" is "who gives a shit what their motivations are?"

I care *that* you want to burn down my house. I only care *why* you want to burn down my house to the extent it helps me stop you.
Read 18 tweets
Feb 20
Father: *strangles my brother*
Me: help help my father is murdering my brother
Centrist Cousin: it’s that sort of us vs them thinking that’s tearing this family apart
Me: no look literally he’s murdering my brother right in front of us

Centrist Cousin: he’s never going to want to stop if you keep vilifying him with overheated black and white language; I’ve engaged many stranglers and learned a lot about the complexities

Brother: gkkk gkk gk
Me: Look he’s about to die, for real; I really think we just need to stop my dad from killing him right now

Centrist Cousin: that’s exactly the sort of judgemental escalating bad thinking on our side that we need to criticize, I refuse to let myself become just as bad as he is
Read 4 tweets
Feb 19
If you want to live in a modern enlightened society and you vote for Republicans, no you don't.
To be clear, that's any Republicans at any level for any position at any time, and honestly we may want to expand that to include Democrats willing to work with Republicans.

Shut the whole party down, out, and over.
If you want to live in a modern enlightened society and you vote for Republicans, no you don't.
Read 4 tweets
Feb 14
As a Wordle pro on the tour, I feel I should share the best starting word, which all the pros know. The word is XYLYL.
(My own personal favorite starting word is COCCYX, but if I show amateurs how to guess 6-letter words I will be banned from the Wordle Pro Tour and forced to sit next to Bret Stephens in the NYT cafeteria.)
Wordle is a game of constantly shifting strategy; I recommend you get the latest version of my strategy compendium, v14.
Read 6 tweets
Feb 13
I want to propose a different way of thinking about conservatism and progressivism.

I suggest we think about the two positions not as detectable ideologies themselves, but as situational orientations around an existing order.

getrevue.co/profile/julius…
Specifically with this order. The one that exists. This reality. The way our systems and laws are set up, the way they’re codified and the way they’re operationalized. What they claim to intend to do, and what they actually do.

“The way things are,” in other words.
Let’s think of conservatism as being, in its essence, an orientation that desires to keep the existing order just as it is, or to make slow and deliberate calculated minor adjustments, to the existing order.
Read 29 tweets
Feb 8
In BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY’S, Mickey Rooney played I. Y. Yunioshi, dressed up in buck teeth and a cartoon squint, a grotesque caricature of a Japanese person.

So I suppose in that sense “you wouldn’t be able” to make BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY’S today.

Which seems somehow preferable.
Now: what interests me is what it means to say *you can’t* make BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY’S these days.

It doesn’t mean you CAN’T. Unlike teaching, say,The Bluest Eye to Texas schoolchildren, there exist no laws to prevent Will Ferrell from putting in the teeth and playing Yunioshi.
So actually you *can* make BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY’S today, I.Y. Yunioshi and all, and throw in Long Duc Dong if you want.

You can if you want wear blackface and dance around in white gloves, like Fred Astaire in SWING TIME, if you want to.

If you want to.
Read 20 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(