Associated with the progressive wing of US politics. The one the NYT hates. Bernie, Warren, AOC, etc., not Hakeem “Progressive Caucus” Jeffries. I’m not saying this is a progressive story, I’m saying you must understand how bothsidsing a story isn’t really just saying “I agree, and once we’ve addressed this problem, we should also address this other lesser issue”. All Lives Matter isn’t trying to say “in addition to black lives, we should remember to pursue justice for everyone unjustly killed”.
This is a bad thing, and bothsidsing it isn’t really an additive effort to make it so we don’t just stop at the open and advertised corruption and instead has the effect of just normalizing the new advancement in corruption. It’s ok to just agree with libs when they’re making a correct but not complete point.
Associated with the progressive wing of US politics. The one the NYT hates. Bernie, Warren, AOC, etc., not Hakeem “Progressive Caucus” Jeffries. I’m not saying this is a progressive story, I’m saying you must understand how bothsidsing a story isn’t really just saying “I agree, and once we’ve addressed this problem, we should also address this other lesser issue”. All Lives Matter isn’t trying to say “in addition to black lives, we should remember to pursue justice for everyone unjustly killed”.
This is a bad thing, and bothsidsing it isn’t really an additive effort to make it so we don’t just stop at the open and advertised corruption and instead has the effect of just normalizing the new advancement in corruption. It’s ok to just agree with libs when they’re making a correct but not complete point.