The people who say that sort of thing heard someone else say it once and just parrot it. When you try and delve deeper into their political philosophy you realize that there’s nothing under the surface.
My Brother-In-Law is like this, What he knows about the political situation of this country wouldn’t fill the back of a postage stamp. Yet he’s perfectly comfortable telling me how all political parties are the same.
Sometimes i find people will also use it as a ‘discussion shut down’ when they don’t want to get pulled into a larger conversation about politics.
They have their reasons, like knowing they have little knowledge on the subject, or knowing the person they’re talking to and not wishing to engage with them too heavily (i may be guilty of employing this tactic at times).
While i find your derogatory comments about concussed goldfish disappointingly predictable, the point is by saying ‘both sides are the same’ or ‘both are as bad as the other’ isn’t really a political opinion.
Its a statement that withdraws from engaging in the differences in party positions on specific subject or policy positions by broad brushing them as the same.
For instance, a flounder might say to a butterfly fish, that, goldfish (concussed or not), are all the same, just to stop talking to the butterfly fish and get out of its reef! :)
Look random people on the street might find it a fun interlude to their day :) I know you weren’t completely though due to the personal example you referred to a couple comments back.
However, you didn’t specify a method, said brother-in-law enters into the political discussions. From an outsider’s perspective, (me), there was no indication.
Also,
will also
I used these words in my first reply, not to deny your experience, but to add to it. The general nature of the word,
people,
in that part of your comment followed by an absolute statement spurred my entry. I think it’s important to highlight varied reasons people have for doing the same things.
You spoke in one part of the comment generally, the other part specifically. My reply attempted to accept your specific experience, while engaging in the general discussion indicated about ‘general people’ happening alongside it.
The people who say that sort of thing heard someone else say it once and just parrot it. When you try and delve deeper into their political philosophy you realize that there’s nothing under the surface.
My Brother-In-Law is like this, What he knows about the political situation of this country wouldn’t fill the back of a postage stamp. Yet he’s perfectly comfortable telling me how all political parties are the same.
Sometimes i find people will also use it as a ‘discussion shut down’ when they don’t want to get pulled into a larger conversation about politics.
They have their reasons, like knowing they have little knowledge on the subject, or knowing the person they’re talking to and not wishing to engage with them too heavily (i may be guilty of employing this tactic at times).
They espouse a political opinion in order to not engage in a political-based conversation?
How does that work.
No they just have a stupid political opinion which is based on the intellect of a concussed goldfish.
While i find your derogatory comments about concussed goldfish disappointingly predictable, the point is by saying ‘both sides are the same’ or ‘both are as bad as the other’ isn’t really a political opinion.
Its a statement that withdraws from engaging in the differences in party positions on specific subject or policy positions by broad brushing them as the same.
For instance, a flounder might say to a butterfly fish, that, goldfish (concussed or not), are all the same, just to stop talking to the butterfly fish and get out of its reef! :)
But you see, they came into the forum. I’m talking about people that come in and go “I think they’re all the same”.
They come to me with that opinion. You don’t think I’m engaging random people on the street in political discourse do you?
Look random people on the street might find it a fun interlude to their day :) I know you weren’t completely though due to the personal example you referred to a couple comments back.
However, you didn’t specify a method, said brother-in-law enters into the political discussions. From an outsider’s perspective, (me), there was no indication.
Also,
I used these words in my first reply, not to deny your experience, but to add to it. The general nature of the word,
in that part of your comment followed by an absolute statement spurred my entry. I think it’s important to highlight varied reasons people have for doing the same things.
You spoke in one part of the comment generally, the other part specifically. My reply attempted to accept your specific experience, while engaging in the general discussion indicated about ‘general people’ happening alongside it.