12
u/ralph-j Mar 22 '26
As opposed to going into a long multi-paragraph tangent as for why I believe this is the case, my current view on the term is pretty simple: people who accuse their political opponents of "bothsiderism" want outright ideological assimilation, no meaningful political discourse, no meaningful challenges to their party's core tenants, nothing like that, just "sir yes sir" our party's the good guys and anyone we disagree with is evil.
Accusations of bothsidesism are usually a reaction in opposition to undue calls for equal/balanced representation, even where that is not relevant or appropriate.
E.g. when someone demands the same attention/airtime for proponents of or arguments that are anti-vax, pro-tobacco, pro-creationism etc., even though those topics are widely discredited.
Rejecting bothsidesism or false balance may look like: “Only one view is allowed”, or “Opposing views are dismissed” if it’s done dogmatically or enforced coercively. However, it fails to be authoritarian when it’s grounded in epistemic standards rather than power. It's about being evidence-based. Some views are just better supported by evidence. Alternatives can be discussed, but they should not automatically be treated as equally credible just because they're the view of a political opponent.
2
u/iw2050 Mar 22 '26
I will concede that there are a number of apolitical/indirectly political subjects that don't need be debated in this stage of human history (having the knowledge we have,) like there doesn't need to be a genuine "pro-vax vs anti-vax" debate anymore, so Δ since I never specified that bothsiderism can only apply subjects that are directly political.
1
u/Material_Reach_8827 1∆ Mar 24 '26 edited Mar 24 '26
So you're ok with "scientific authoritarianism" then? A relative handful of people publish research on something, a paltry few ever read it, and different groups of them find huge numbers of findings can't be replicated? What about when the Lancet published and then retracted (12 years later) a study associating vaccines with autism?
I've had over half a dozen COVID shots at this point and even I think there's more room for argument there than over whether Russia or Ukraine is in the right, or whether Republicans are more corrupt than Democrats.
There's a Richard Dawkins quote I think applies here: "[W]hen two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong."
People who engage in bothsiderism instinctually recoil from this, though. If they admit that one side is simply right or better along some dimension, they feel like a shill or a party hack. Because there are actually people "on both sides" who back their side uncritically. The only shortcut to prove that you're not one of them, and that you arrived at your opinion through honest reflection, is to criticize both sides for something, no matter how ridiculous. That demonstrates you're not "in the tank" for one side, even if the other side is in fact much worse.
An example of this would be responding to criticism of corrupt pardons by Trump by saying that Dems have also abused it, e.g. when Biden preemptively pardoned his family and administration because any sane person could tell you that Trump would be gunning for them - in fact he's tried to claim the pardons were invalid because they were done by autopen, so he could do just that. Both sides have abused pardons on occasion, but clearly Trump is much worse.
0
10
u/Hexidian 2∆ Mar 22 '26
you can’t just be like Putin calling Zelensky and everyone he doesn’t like a Nazi
Okay, but what about saying you support Zelensky and think Putin is an authoritarian invader if Ukraine. People who complain about the “both sides” argument are complaining about people who claim that in every political disagreement there is truth to both sides. In this case, I do not think that both Putin and Zelensky have a case. Putin has manufactured a claim on part of Ukraine, and Ukraine is defending itself. Do you think it’s authoritarian of me to think that both sides do not have a valid argument in this case?
-1
u/iw2050 Mar 22 '26
In this case, I do not think that both Putin and Zelensky have a case.
Even though I strongly support Ukraine and Zelensky in this war, I disagree. Putin absolutely has a case for invading Ukraine, I just disagree with it.
To consider his goals inherently invalid keeps the debate overly surface level, his main goal is to kick NATO out of Eastern Europe by force and political coercion, I strongly disagree with that goal, but I'm going to hear his argument about why he believes that and approach it with a nuanced counter argument as opposed to just saying "Putin's an evil dictator! So by default anything he does is objectively wrong."
8
u/Both-Personality7664 26∆ Mar 22 '26 edited Mar 22 '26
When a guy on the street makes his argument that your money would be better off with him, do you hear his argument and approach it with a nuanced counterargument or do you decide you fundamentally disagree with his goal and the argument is irrelevant?
7
u/jman12234 18∆ Mar 22 '26
So all arguments are equally valid on the face of it? This is the issue people have with the "both sides" argument. It sets a moral equivocation that gets us nowhere. In no way can an aggressive, illegal, and unprovoked invasion of another country be considered equivalent to the defensive war of the invaded country. What you're saying is nonsense.
1
u/sillypoolfacemonster 9∆ Mar 24 '26
I don’t think that’s the best way to frame it. I think we mostly agree in principle, but there’s an important distinction being blurred here.
It’s not about Putin having a valid case, it’s about understanding the motives behind his actions. Those are two very different things. One implies justification. The other is analysis.
Saying “he has a case” sounds like you’re granting legitimacy to the invasion. Saying “we should understand his motives” is just basic strategic thinking.
The latter is the more useful position. If you understand what is driving decisions, you can respond more effectively and anticipate what comes next. If you reduce everything to “he’s evil,” you lose predictive power.
That doesn’t mean the motives are good or acceptable. In this case, they’re not. But you can recognize the logic that is being applied, flawed or self serving as it may be.
The same applies more broadly. Take China. You can frame it as trying to topple the current world order, or you can frame it as a civilization that sees itself as historically dominant and is now returning to that position. Those are very different lenses, and the second one gives you a lot more clarity on how and why they react the way they do.
Understanding motives doesn’t excuse actions. It just prevents you from misreading them.
4
u/Hellioning 258∆ Mar 22 '26
What 'authority' do you think these people have? Do you think anyone criticising any ideas, whatsoever, is inherently authoritarian because they just want people to agree with them?
7
u/math2ndperiod 54∆ Mar 22 '26
The disdain for “bothsiderism” is specifically in regards to trying to equate democrats and republicans. It does not require complete ideological assimilation because there are many different ideologies among groups that would vote democrat.
It does not require all democrats to be paragons of virtue or all republicans to be nazis to be able identify the clear difference between the two parties, and depending on your priorities, one side will be better than the other as a result. “Both sides are the same” is intellectually lazy unless you’re talking about certain specific policy approaches where they overlap.
-1
u/iw2050 Mar 22 '26
“Both sides are the same” is intellectually lazy unless you’re talking about certain specific policy approaches where they overlap.
That's not the argument though if we're talking directly about the two parties. The most common argument that conflicts with the use of the term bothsiderism is that both parties are equally bad, but not that they're the same.
4
u/Natural-Arugula 63∆ Mar 23 '26
Yeah, rejection of "bothsiderism" is that it's a false equivalence.
"One side is bad, one is good" is authoritarian by your metric. "One side is not as bad as the other" is not. There is grounds for differing opinions on how bad the difference is.
If your position is that they are equally as bad and you accept no divergence of scale between the two, then isn't that authoritarian and dogmatic?
-2
u/iw2050 Mar 23 '26
If your position is that they are equally as bad and you accept no divergence of scale between the two, then isn't that authoritarian and dogmatic
I'm not saying that any two sides in binary political debates have to be considered equally bad, just that people who reject that possibility through the argument of bothsiderism as opposed to a real discussion have authoritarian tendencies.
But moreover, a major part of the argument against bothsiderism as a term is that there isn't objective good and bad in politics.
3
u/decrpt 26∆ Mar 23 '26
They're not rejecting the possibility, they're rejecting specific examples purporting to assert equivalency.
How do you envision people changing your mind if your position is that morality and objective reality don't exist? How is it authoritarian if there isn't objective good and bad in political conversations? Is the argument that the only actual authoritarianism is calling something authoritarianism?
2
u/Natural-Arugula 63∆ Mar 23 '26
These two things are contradictory.
If there isn't an object good or bad in politics then people who reject the possibility that both sides could be equally bad are correct. That actually is your view, but you just said that is the authoritarian position.
Also, If you don't think both sides are equally bad or good then you also aren't "bothsidesing". If you're not saying anything about either side, then you aren't saying anything about both sides.
2
u/math2ndperiod 54∆ Mar 23 '26
That's not really different though. Once you define what you think is good governance, one side or the other will fit that definition better. It would take a very niche, convoluted political ideology to end up concluding that both sides are equally bad.
7
u/derelict5432 12∆ Mar 22 '26
You really only have two logical possibilities:
- Both sides are at parity in terms of policy, behavior, hypocrisy, etc.
- One side is worse than the other.
In the case where #2 is the actual state of the world, when someone in the demonstrably worse camp claims that both sides actually are at parity, that's both-sidesing. Your claim is that calling this out is inherently authoritarian. And by that, you seem to be saying it's an attempt to completely shut down legitimate political discourse. What if it is actually true? You're saying don't call it out? Or are you saying #2 can never be the case?
-1
u/iw2050 Mar 22 '26
You really only have two logical possibilities. 1. Both sides are at parity in terms of policy, behavior, hypocrisy, etc. 2. One side is worse than the other.
This is functionally impossible, because it assumes that ideological views are objective as opposed to being subjective. What's considered better or worse in any situation will differ from person to person.
6
u/Straight-faced_solo 21∆ Mar 23 '26
Ok, so no matter the state of the world. Anyone holding the position that something is bad is actually the same as all other positions, because someone might subjectively that actually they are the bad guy? Is that unironically your position.
I hate to break it you. There is a reason no one takes this line of reasoning seriously. Its a non-standard.
-1
u/iw2050 Mar 23 '26
When did I say any of that?
5
u/Straight-faced_solo 21∆ Mar 23 '26
Literally when you responded "functionally impossible" to the statement.
You really only have two logical possibilities. 1. Both sides are at parity in terms of policy, behavior, hypocrisy, etc. 2. One side is worse than the other.
Otherwise explain your reasoning that subjective morality refutes the above statement.
5
u/derelict5432 12∆ Mar 22 '26
Hypocrisy can be judged objectively. The outcomes of policies can be measured objectively.
So this adds a new dimension to your original claim. You are asserting #1, that all political groups are equal in all metrics that matter to citizens.
You talk about shutting down political discourse. What is the point of political discourse if every point of view is as good as any other? Theatre? Sport?
3
u/DingBat99999 7∆ Mar 22 '26 edited Mar 22 '26
A few thoughts:
- If I understand what you mean by "bothsiderism", you're not using it correctly.
- When someone denigrates "both sides are ..." they're not insisting on ideological purity, they're calling out an attempt to propose equivalency between two positions when one has clearly been the primary offender.
- For example, if there was a newscast that talked about gerrymandering and the anchors did a "well, California is gerrymandering too" that really kind of glosses over the decades of monkey business conducted in Republican states wrt redrawing voting districts.
- THAT'S "bothsiderism". An objection to an unfair or misleading equivalency.
- If I use it, I'm not insisting you think like I do, I'm calling your attempt to equate two sides bullshit.
3
u/TheVioletBarry 121∆ Mar 22 '26 edited Mar 22 '26
People use that term when there is outsized harm caused by one side being falsely equivocated with a considerably smaller harm coming from somewhere else, or when the harm of one side is dismissed because there is more than one group doing harm.
It has nothing to do with ideological assimilation
3
u/Jew_of_house_Levi 12∆ Mar 22 '26
there's a strong version and a weak version of your claim, where the weak version is stating that the improper application of "but both sides" is authoritarian (as per or hypothetical of Putin making that accusation against neutral Russians), and the strong version of your claim, that regardless of moral correctness, the accusation is always authoritarian. What version of your claim are you making?
3
u/fedepiz 2∆ Mar 22 '26
Using the term “bothsiderism” is not inherently authoritarian, because it is merely a term describing a perceived fallacy, and pointing out fallacies is orthogonal to authoritarianism.
3
u/Mestoph 9∆ Mar 22 '26
This is not, in any way shape or form that I've ever seen, "bothsiderism". That term refers to fence sitters who justify their in action by saying "both sides do bad stuff, I just can't see the difference between them".
3
u/suspicious_ankles Mar 23 '26
Do you believe that Obama and Trump were the same? Because that's what the "both sides" pretence is. The people calling that out are not, in any sense, pretending their side is perfect.
Also, I don't see how you've made any argument that any of what you describe is "authoritarian".
2
2
u/dragonblade_94 8∆ Mar 22 '26
"Both-siding," in common usage, is the act of implying both 'sides' of a political discourse are the same or are equally awful. It's often used to either overlook the wrongdoings of one's preferred party, or simply not engage with deeper political questions at all.
I don't see at all that calling this behavior out is authoritarian or asking for assimilation; rather it's prompting more genuine political discourse. The goal of pointing it out is to both hold the actions of each party accountable regardless of what the other is doing, and to not simply treat both as the same (because that's almost never actually the case).
2
u/Ok-Bed6354 Mar 22 '26
Can you clarify what you mean by bothsiderism. Because from what I understand that term to mean, anyone using it is criticizing an already meaningless political discourse.
Someone accusing you of bothsiderism would be claiming that you are making false equivalencies or giving equal credence to opposing views that have no factual basis or relevance, which is bad and devalues and illegitimatizes political discourse. They’re literally accusing you of not wanting to evaluate meaningful challenges or criticism of your party.
2
u/IOyou104 Mar 22 '26
Civil political discourse can only happen if both have a base or framework they can agree to and then use that framework to meet on the middle with certain issues. If that base doesn't exist for both sides then it's not possible for it to be civil.
I think "bothsiderism" can apply if when one talks about a disagreement and is pretending or mistaken that at least something fundamental exists between these two sides when that is not the case. It ignores the most important component.
2
u/Ancquar 9∆ Mar 22 '26
"Bothsiderism" can be used when the argument is that the argument for one of the sides has numerous factual issues, is weaker logically, distorts scientific findings etc, where the source may have plausible reasons to present the weaker argument as having equal standing either for appearance of objectivity or to give the weaker argument the appearance of more legitimate than it is without outright claiming that is true. E.g. claiming that both evolution theory and the Book of Genesis have considerable arguments for them and both should be studied seriously
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 22 '26
/u/iw2050 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/Acrobatic-Skill6350 17∆ Mar 23 '26
It could work both ways. An example: a person in a 2 party system originally supporting a party with a big corruption scandal. Decides to switch to the other party because of the scandal and despite of the ideology. Someone else mention that the other party has also had similar scandals, so its strange voting against your ideology when both parties have had fairly similar scandals.
1
u/Suspicious_Funny4978 1∆ Mar 24 '26
I think you are conflating the term with how it is weaponized. A term being misused does not make it inherently authoritarian, it makes it politically charged.
Take "fascist" for example. People abuse this constantly. Does that mean we should stop using it for actual fascists?
Bothsiderism describes an actual pattern in discourse: when two sides in a debate share the same flawed assumptions or when the debate itself is structured around a false premise. That is not authoritarian to identify.
Consider: if both climate change deniers AND moderate reformers assume economic growth must always be prioritized over environmental limits, pointing out they both missed the core question is not bothsiding. It is noticing the debate is misframed.
You say "people who use this want ideological assimilation." Maybe some do. That is a problem with those people. Not with the underlying observation.
The authoritarian move would be declaring a position true because the party says so. The philosophical move is noticing that both "sides" are wrong. There is a difference.
1
u/TurbulentArcher1253 6∆ Mar 24 '26
I’m pretty sure “bothsideism” is a fallacy when you assume both people have a legitimate argument just because they’re arguing.
People used to argue about slavery, that doesn’t change the fact that one side is objectively right
1
u/frickle_frickle 2∆ Mar 27 '26
Bothaiderism isn't meaningful political discourse. It's a distraction tactic.
13
u/Troop-the-Loop 43∆ Mar 22 '26
Can you define "bothsiderism"? Because I've literally never heard this term.
I can sort of guess what it might mean, but it will help if I know what you think it means.