Thread by @JuliusGoat

A different way (for me) of looking at the concept of "Both Sides" I've been pondering recently.

A hypothetical: You and I are straight. We're debating whether our gay friend should be allowed to marry his boyfriend. You're pro. I'm con.

Name both sides of this debate.

This is a very understandable way of framing the debate, and difficult to dispute. On one side, you're pro-love. On the other I'm anti-gay. Or maybe (if I'm con) I'd say I'm pro-tradition and you're virtue signalling.

But this frame misses a key point.

https://twitter.com/ohnoayeti/status/1140242902943240192?s=20

Notice, please, how this framing—the "both sides" of the debate—only contemplates you and me, straight people who will be, as a practical matter, unaffected either way the debate goes.

Notice how it completely takes our gay friend and his boyfriend out of the picture.

The REAL "both sides" of this particular debate are you and me, whose disagreement is merely philosophical in nature, and the real people who are being discussed as abstracts, in such a way that they aren't usually even seen as being on either of the "both sides" of the debate.

Think about the way that even framing things around a *debate* automatically does this—erases the real stakes for real people involved.

Think about the way framing any issue as "both sides" automatically does this—even erases those people from consideration.

It's by design.

Here's my theory: a lot of us have already agreed that EVERYBODY should have their basic humanity honored in all ways

We've already acknowledged our differences, but we're insisting that our shared humanity overrides that

That's not "one side," as some would have it. It's many

What really is a 'side,' practically/politically speaking, than a different perspective from a different lived experience?

Think of all the "sides" that are currently being lumped under the umbrella of one of only two "sides," simply for insisting on the shared humanity of all?

There are those who utilize debate to deny the basic humanity of all different types of people

They'd have it that our acknowledgement of our differences are what creates division and strife, rather than that denial

They want to be considered one of only two different "sides"

So on one "side" are straight and gay and trans and bi and black and white and brown and muslim and christian and able-bodied and disabled and ... on and on, all agreeing to understand each other, all trying to work it out for all of us ...

... and THAT is one of two "sides?"

That's not one of two "sides." That's infinite "sides," unified mostly by a willingness to set any differences aside in a shared acknowledgement that basic humanity overrides that

How can that "side" be living in an echo chamber or a bubble?

Think of how much there is to learn

To refuse to compromise on that shared acknowledgement that basic humanity overrides any differences isn't closed-minded.

It's refusing to close an open mind.

That shared acknowledgement is what keep the mind open to different perspectives from different lived experiences.

To refuse to acknowledge and recognize differences is another way of erasing them.

We don't need to refuse to see difference, but only to celebrate them.

And to bring this back to debate, to refuse any premise that would have it that our shared humanity doesn't override them.

If you allow that premise in debate, then you're contracting infinite uoppositional and co-relational "sides" down into only two oppositional ones, in a way that completely erases the humanity of the actual people being discussed.

That's not open-minded. It's just not.

Debate can be an excellent tool for curious people of good faith and intentions to refine ideas and come to new and better conclusions

But it makes a horrible and destructive competitive weapon

It shrinks the world to two sides

But humanity is infinite sides

And also only one

If you have a premise to debate, enjoy your debate—but watch the frame carefully.

Don't compromise our shared acknowledgement of the essential humanity of literally EVERYONE.

To do so is to have already surrendered the game.

/end

The examples are basically infinite. I used gay marriage as an example probably because a gay friend just got engaged (congrats!) and because I spent yesterday as one of the few cargo-shorted men at Pride.

https://twitter.com/ETori/status/1140252002087309312?s=20