I think that's broadly true: both sides want America to fail when the other side is in power in order to prove they're right.

▲

drfloyd51 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Strong disagree.

One side is clearly interested in helping others simply because they need help. The other is clearly interested in help others that they can relate to (look like themselves) and have earned the right to help (such as believing in the right god.) or only helping people that can help them back.

▲

2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

NoMoreNicksLeft an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Quite a few on one side seem to want to "help others" so they can demonstrate publicly how awesome and righteous they are. And we can even falsify this hypothesis a bit... such people would, I speculate, be more interested in the appearance of helping than in the substance of helping. They'll tend to arrange the help in such a way as to garner the most publicity. And, most of all, they'll allocate their efforts such that they're vocal about how they're the good guys doing all the helping more than they're actively helping. Just to make sure everyone notices.

	▲	ImPostingOnHN 9 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> Quite a few on one side seem to want to "help others" so they can demonstrate publicly how awesome and righteous they are Being awesome because you help those in need? How horrible! > more interested in the appearance of helping than in the substance of helping This is a common and tired talking point: "virtue signalling". It often comes from people who are less helpful than others, and resent how more helpful people receive accolades. Their own personal judgement about whether something actually helps isn't authoritative, and is usually motivated reasoning anyways.

▲

gcanyon 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don't want "the other side" to fail, and I absolutely don't wan the U.S. to fail when they are in power. I want the U.S. to succeed, and for "the other side" to be competent and fair.

▲

krsw 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Classic enlightened centrist take. One side yells when the other dismantles the institutions that let the country work, so both sides are equally bad.

▲

californical 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Both bad, and one is more bad than the other. They’re not equally bad but they are both very bad

	▲	disillusioned 3 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		This is a bit like saying a hangnail and a gangrenous amputation are "not equally bad but they are both very bad". One is literally chopping things off to permanently alter them. The other is, at times, uncomfortable and frustrating. The false equivalence of doing the "both bad!" song and dance serves to so radically under-emphasize the absolute wanton, orders-of-magnitude-worse levels of corruption and evisceration of norms of one side by reducing it to "more bad than the other but they're both very bad." It allows the window to shift to normalize the sort of destruction of systems we're seeing by hand waving away how "the other guys aren't great, either!" It's borderline discourse malpractice at this point, and should be called out as such.
	▲	chipsrafferty an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Yes the US is more bad, agreed

▲

rootusrootus an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

The enlightened centrist take is not entirely wrong, though. The left definitely has some blind spots, among them their purist dedication to perfect morals and a willingness to tell anyone who does not perfectly agree to piss off.

While the right is comfortable holding their nose when white supremacists hang around because it gets them a bigger coalition, the left will excommunicate someone for saying out loud that they think trans women are not exactly equivalent to biological women. This shrinking of the coalition is how we ended up enduring another Trump presidency.

Not to mention the complete fiasco that was the 2024 presidential race. We should have thrown out the entirety of DNC leadership several levels deep for letting that happen.

	▲	cestith an hour ago \| parent [-]
		There’s a bit of a duality about perfect agreement within the voters for the party’s candidates and somewhat within the party membership itself. Yeah, there’s a lot of telling each other to piss off. There’s a lot of jockeying for the platform and the primaries. But come the general, it’s a minority of the voters who will sit it out or vote for a minor party. Sometimes it’s a large enough minority to hand things to the Republicans, though.