Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by FieryTransition 1314 days ago
I understand that there's frustration and a lot has to do with the focus on hate or being hated, that's where the rhetoric seems to land at least.

I would say, if the hate was completely irrational, or you think that the other politicians are just as bad, then that is not ok either. Since two wrongs does not equal right, and actions should not be seen as a balance scale of 'doing equally bad things to each other', which somehow rationally makes it ok to do bad things in what seems to be a hateful way. It should not be accepted to do bad things, no matter the party, the opposition or person.

So if you think Trump is doing bad things, and the other party is doing bad things as well, rejecting both Trump and the other party seems like the logical option given the options? You don't have to belong to any camp/party, it's a hurtful illusion/rhetoric IMO, 'us or them'.

And if you think the current other politicians are doing bad things as well, I'm genuinely interested to know what bad things they are, and not just things which can be seen as political disagreements. Because I I just don't know what you are thinking about when you say it specifically, it's as simple as that, not ill intentioned. But I can understand if you do not wish to air your opinions.

But I'm under no illusion that on both sides of the parties there are and have been bad actors and corruption, which has been ongoing in many forms, which must be fought no matter where it is. I'm just afraid that when you 'weigh evil' as a justification you lose nuance, and people are more likely to fall into the tribalistic rhetoric equivalent of 'mud slinging' or just calling 'hate' which I find sadly unproductive.