You prefer a "both sides" style of political coverage?

At what point in the slide to authoritarianism should that stop? Where is the line?

kevin_thibedeau 7 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I like this aphorism someone once stated on bothsides-ism: When an arson burns down your home you don't pause to consider their side of the situation. Standing up to a bully doesn't mean the bully is being treated unfairly. They're just not accustomed to pushback on their BS and quickly don the caul of victimhood whenever their position is exposed.

▲

dylan604 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Or the other side of at what point into ending capitalism in favor of socialism should that stop?

Yes, I enjoy "both sides" coverage when it's done in earnest. What passes for that today is two people representing the extremes of either spectrum looking for gotcha moments as an "owning" moment. We haven't seen a good "both sides" in decades

▲

lokar 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I see the capitalism vs socialism as a spectrum with valid debate all along it.

I don't see how one honestly argues in favor of an authoritarian government

	▲	dylan604 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Ahh, you must be using the rational definition of socialism and not the extremist corrupted use as cover for dictators.
	▲	an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]