If someone tries to throw this at you, remember that it’s an argumentative fallacy, it’s called tu quoque.
Good to know the name, I’ve seen it invoked a few times.
In fact, I had this recently at work where I questioned a decision only for them to retort with one similar characteristic which a prior suggestion of mine shared. This was also a modal fallacy as they only used that one characteristic to come to a conclusion about both.
You also see it all of the time in politics unfortunately, a lot of “yeah but you also…” where we should be hearing good justifications.
I don’t get it, who’s saying people who support election reform shouldn’t vote?
We sure get a lot of “both sides bad” around here.
Hard not to be suspicious of their motives.
How to drive voter turnout and create more sides so we’re not just left with two absolutely garbage choices every time:
Get rid of fucking first past the post. Ranked choice is by far more democratic, and some states have already implemented it to great success. Let’s go already, this needs to be the national standard.
Voting is the minimum. The reason there’s no decent alternative is because people vote and think they did their part.
If you’re voting for the lesser of two evils and that lesser is actively supporting genocide, but you’re complaining about people that are saying ‘both sides bad’…
‘If you’re curious what you would do to stand up against genocide, you’re doing it now’ - a braver man than me
I assume you’re talking about the US and the reason the US is always voting between the lesser of two evils is because it’s a FPTP voting system as well as a lot of convoluted old systems that need to be updated. The ability to throw your vote away is a failure of a democratic system and why the US is an oligarchy because the people you can vote for are determined for you and not selected by you.
Are the sticks supposed to be euphemism?
Removed by mod
