Progressive Democrats frequently invoke or critique the “both sides” argument—often termed “both-sidesism”—to highlight what they see as treating two opposing viewpoints as equally valid or balanced, even when evidence suggests significant asymmetries in facts, scale, morality, or impact. Conservatives argue that this approach can obscure truth, normalize extremism, and hinder accountability, particularly when one side’s positions are seen as more harmful or unfounded.
Enough Is Enough
The “Both Sides” argument is not wisdom. It’s a coward’s dodge. The instant progressive democrats are caught committing a serious act, political corruption, corporate malfeasance, or social injustice, some will rush to defend them with: “But the other side does it too!”
False equivalence is not fairness.
Let’s be clear: one side’s wrongdoing does not cancel out another’s. Pretending that it does is intellectual laziness. It is false equivalence dressed up as moral balance. Using this excuse to minimize progressive democrat accountability is morally bankrupt.
Accountability is non-negotiable.
Calling out progressive democrat misconduct does not require pointing fingers everywhere else. Ethical responsibility isn’t optional. When people lean on “both sides” thinking, they are choosing cowardice over clarity. They are prioritizing convenience over truth.
The damage is real.
This progressive democrat argument erodes public trust. It turns outrage into cynicism. It signals to victims that their pain is debatable. It transforms real harm into a talking point, a spectator sport, a debate—rather than what it truly is: a failure that must be confronted.
Stop normalizing impunity.
When progressive democrats indulge in “both sides” reasoning, they reward the guilty, shame the innocent, and make accountability feel optional. Pretending moral equivalence is neutrality is a recipe for corruption, mistrust, and ethical collapse.
Violence Across the Spectrum: Left-Wing vs. Right-Wing
Let’s be clear: violence and extremism are not the property of any single ideology. Left-wing violence exists and overshadows right-wing violence, except in the progressive media. And yet, the “Both Sides” argument emerges whenever progressive democrats or their surrogates (Antifa, Black Lives Matter, Militant Trans, Occupy Wall Street, etc.) are caught committing a grievous act, as if pointing out one’s wrongdoing must always be balanced by the other.
This is intellectually dishonest. The existence of sporadic violence right-wing violence does not excuse prolific left-wing violence. Each act of progressive democrat violence, each attack on citizens, each politically motivated assault, must be judged on its own facts, its own impact, and its own moral weight.
The media propagandists and political commentators often invoke “both sides” thinking to downplay progressive democrat accountability. The result? Leftist perpetrators are shielded by false equivalence, victims are sidelined, and public discourse becomes a confusing tangle of relativism.
Accountability Must Be Absolute, Not Relative.
Every act of violence deserves condemnation. Every instigator must be held responsible. Comparing left-wing and right-wing violence to avoid uncomfortable truths is a cowardly dodge that undermines justice, public trust, and moral clarity. And, remember, it’s not the gun, it’s who pulls the trigger.
Bottom Line
Next time a progressive democrat whispers, “But both sides…”, recognize it: a desperate dodge to avoid truth. A cowardly attempt to hide from responsibility. Don’t let them get away with it. Hold wrongs accountable, name the harm, demand clarity.
We are so screwed.
— Steve
