[dead]
Re:Study of “moral grandstanding” helps explain why social m...
by AnimalMuppet on Thursday November 21, 2019 @08:40PM
(#21601702)
Neither. Both sides can be equally tribal without both sides being equally right.
But as for you, you seem to be playing language lawyer with the GP's words, to try to find a sliver of a way to accuse him/her of lying. Why?
The topic we are discussing is moral grandstanding on social media. The comment I replied to suggested that only one "side" is guilty of this behavior. I'm interpreting a "side" as the supporters of particular party and their actions on social media, and not the policies and actions of the party's politicians. I believe there are people on both sides of the spectrum that routinely cringe at the behavior of those they agree with. There are many staunch Republicans that wish to distance themselves from the social policies of their constituents. Likewise, there are Democrats that are unfairly given stigmatizing labels from their peers for having fiscally conservative views. Both "sides" are guilty of tribal tendencies, ignoring any possibility of nuance, and pigeon-holing "centrists" into Team Red or Blue. And I'm not distancing myself to relish in my own smug either, I've been guilty of this as well.
Just like with football, neither side likes the guy that supports both teams when it's convenient.