"Bothsidesism" is a tired argument. Somehow if you don't think that one side of a debate is utter evil and the other side is as pure as the driven snow, you're engaging in "bothsidesism" if you acknowledge there are any shades of gray in the world. Which is a childish argument for anyone older than a high school sophomore.

▲

mmooss 8 hours ago | parent [-]

> tired

What relevance does that have to truth? I'm tired of online disinformation; should I say it's a tired issue and therefore irrelevant?

Denial that bothsidesism exists, or being tired of dealing with the problem, is irrelevant.

▲

psunavy03 6 hours ago | parent [-]

"Bothsidesism" is a lie that is used to avoid criticizing one side when the other side is also bad. Just because one side is awful does not grant the other side a free pass to be immune from criticism or to get their way on everything. The idea of "bothsidesism" forces a false dichotomy and then forces you to pick a side, when there are almost always more than two choices. It's what partisans use to beat down people who say "I pick 'None Of The Above,' because you both suck."

	▲	mmooss 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You define it that way but that's only you as far as I know - I haven't seen that definition or had that experience - and it ignores the actual bothsidesism problem, which is certainly not a lie IME.