Are most issues of politics black-and-white, or various shades of nuance?
Facts are black and white.
Politics is SUPPOSED to be the nuance of deciding how to address/respond to those facts.
Politics? Black and white.
Real life? Nuanced.
Sadly, there's a difference.
Nuanced. Sadly, our press and politicians only deal in black and white. Hence the many challenges we have reaching solutions to complex issues.
Civil rights are black and white. Other things are nuanced.
Everything is black and white. If you disagree, that indicates to me that you don't have sufficiently nuanced understanding. Shades of gray conversation is useful for shorthand or explanations at levels of organization pertinent one, rather than the level that demonstrates black and white.
All issues are black and white when you have the right information.
I'd be interested in discovering any political issue that is truly only two-sided, with no grounds for compromise imaginable.
All *issues* probably have several solutions.
It's only some *stances* on an issue that have jusy two options to reply: for or against.
Example: term limits for political offices is nuanced.
"Should the office of POTUS have a two term limit?" isn't.
Right. Issues. As the question is asking.
Nuanced, that’s why irrational radicals are a threat to the system......
I'm radical, but if you pay close attention I apply great amounts of nuance.
Mmm... religiouscommie I️ could see that to be true... you not so much😂
If you ask me, the radical left is inherently more nuanced than any other by the system of critique and the philosophy of progress by negation called dialectic. This is a tool nobody else uses anymore. There was a time of right-wingers using dialectic.
Your bias is showing.
When we're right wingers dialectical?
Basically all of 19th century Prussian intellectuals read Schelling and Hegel and valued the dialectical method, this included Marx and Feuerbach amongst the young (left) Hegelians, and people like Richard Wagner amongst the right. Julius Evola, though Italian and a modernist, was a fascist who had a sense of dialectics through absolute Idealism but he moved away from it after he wrote Ride the Tiger.
Hegel, especially, was the legendary philosopher of his time. Considered to be above Schopenhauer. Really, Schopenhauer was not received well until the Freudian-turn of 20th century Vienna.
There are a few neo-reactionaries alive today who still talk about Dialectics. Most of them belonging to the SR/OOO movement (though not all SRs reactionaries). The big names amongst them being Nick Land and Meillansoux.
Well you know a lot of stuff 😏
Nuanced. Let's be dialectical.
Both can be the case but usually nuanced.
Should we declare war on North Korea is either/or.
Opinions on immigration go from ban all immigration to let everyone in/open borders.
War on the DPRK is nuanced too. Should we let them do their own thing? Should we put pressure on them to change their course? Should we wage economic war on them, like our sanctions? Should we send in someone to change the leadership but leave the rest of the nation in tact? Should we declare war, but be very limited in our response? Should we nuke Pyongyang?
How to interact with foreign countries is vert nuanced as well. Immigration only looks more nuanced, because you've chosen a broader subject than should we declare war on the DPRK. If you chose, should we build a wall, that's Mich less nuanced, unless you step back, like I did regarding the DPRK, and look at the larger issue at hand.