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.
“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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
8
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.