"Bothsiderism"

[Hannu]

Some ponderings of philosophical traps in political thinking... Mainly about "both sides do It"...this post may contain some ideas for posters seeking truth in matters, or may have some ideas of interest to aid moderators a bit in their work.

One logical fallacy is a bit like "birthday fallacy" of assuming that since everyone has a birthday, therefor everyone must have SAME birthday. This is of course wrong. A bit similar way one may instinctively think that "both parties have lying politicians - therefor both parties must have AS MUCH liars and lie as much ". This is of course a fallacy, no logic dictates so. Since the idea of one party being all-good and the other all-evil, with one doing always right and the other always wrong is false also - this in my opinion is self evident and need not be argued further - the relevant question in choosing a party in a two party system may well be questions like which party more often breaks election promises, has more corruption scandals and so on. The right moral choice imo - if we consider politics without political ideologies - in "both sides do it" issues would be to determine which party does more wrong, then support the better party, and also reminding it has room to improve its morals too. Both Obama and Trump broke election promises; but if Trump did so more, that is one good argument why Obama was a better president, while he made some things wrong too. Both 6/1 and BLM vandals who took part in looting and such need to be condemned; but the former moreso imo because it was a bigger offense and based on a lie. This kind of things are difficult to evaluate though.
Another important difference in "bothsiderism" is whether or not the commenter is willing to condemn his own side doing wrong thing also. Very often the commenter is not and then the whole argument just falls to pieces. Morality must be based on logical rules and same for all regardless of things like political party. If the argument is that both A and B do wrong, A is ok in doing wrong because B do it too. then by the same logic B is ok in doing wrong also because A does it too. So, for example if someone argues in a threat about Trump wrongdoing that Trump ought to be excused because Hillary or Obama or some other democrat did something bit similar too (probably not by saying exactly so, but clearly meaning so), then by the same logic there is nothing wrong with what Hillary did either and she must be excused because "some con does something similar too". This is what the argument would lead to, though it is of course also what a partisan sycophant can not admit. So when stripped of all pretense the whole argument would be like "as a moral nihilist I do not really think there is anything wrong doing X but I am trying to pretend otherwise (to others or to myself) because it would advance my own aims.
So, in my opinion, as a generalisation - when someone says or clearly means that "politician in my party does nothing wrong/ought to be excused of the matter under discussion, because some other does something similar too- then the commenter imo deserves all the ridicule he gets. However, if the commenter is openly admitting that it is wrong that party A does X. and then proceeds to point that party B does something similar too, the comment imo is often good and honest one, and ought to be treated with consideration (provided it does not lead to twisting the thread to off-topic matter). Imo people just would do well to remember that "both sides do it" must by no logical authomatics lead to conclusion that "both sides do it AS MUCH". That "politicians in both parties lie" must be no mean authomathically mean that "they both lie AS MUCH".

 

[ASHES]

Both sides also tell me how much worse the other guy really is.

 

[Mithrae]

So, for example if someone argues in a threat about Trump wrongdoing that Trump ought to be excused because Hillary or Obama or some other democrat did something bit similar too (probably not by saying exactly so, but clearly meaning so), then by the same logic there is nothing wrong with what Hillary did either and she must be excused because "some con does something similar too".

Alternatively, their argument could be that since Obama did the same Trump's critics must first condemn Obama (or preferably show where they or other prominent anti-Trump folk condemned Obama at the time) before their criticism of Trump for the same action can be taken seriously. If that criticism of Trump were nothing more than hypocritical partisan opportunism, it might not merit any further response regardless of how the responder herself really feels about it.

 

[less right]

Always interesting to get an outside view. Although I suppose "both siderism" debates happen world wide. At least where speaking your mind isn't against the law.

 

[Hannu]

Alternatively, their argument could be that since Obama did the same Trump's critics must first condemn Obama (or preferably show where they or other prominent anti-Trump folk condemned Obama at the time) before their criticism of Trump for the same action can be taken seriously. If that criticism of Trump were nothing more than hypocritical partisan opportunism, it might not merit any further response regardless of how the responder herself really feels about it.

True, good point; I guess the relevant point is that a nihilist who does not really think there is anything wrong with lying/cheating/bribery/whatever has no believability to condemn such. If both A and B do X, but A doing is morally ok because B does it too, then logically it is morally ok for B too to do X because A does it also. Also, another a bit similar thinking, to which this may in practice result is "better a liar and crook of my own party than a honest one from the other party"-thinking. It may feel convenient at short term but when a party operates by that logic a long time, in the end there is little anything else but liars and crooks.

 

[Hannu]

Always interesting to get an outside view. Although I suppose "both siderism" debates happen world wide. At least where speaking your mind isn't against the law.

thanks; and very true, I sure do not claim there is no crooked or hypocritical politicians in my country. A two party system may make these things more visible though; things get more complicated if the claim is that "the other dozen or so parties do it too" instead of "the other party does it too".

 

[Buckeyes85]

Alternatively, their argument could be that since Obama did the same Trump's critics must first condemn Obama (or preferably show where they or other prominent anti-Trump folk condemned Obama at the time) before their criticism of Trump for the same action can be taken seriously. If that criticism of Trump were nothing more than hypocritical partisan opportunism, it might not merit any further response regardless of how the responder herself really feels about it.

The flaw in that logic is part of the same issue- the suggestion that two separate issues/occurrences really are one in the same. Example, Trump criticized Obama for ever golfing while president, claiming he would be too busy as president to golf. Then he goes out and golfs 4 times more often in 4 years than Obama did in 8. So did I have to criticize Obama at that time for ever golfing before criticizing Trump for making 275 trips to his golf courses? I don't think so.

 

[CaughtInThe]

let's do the math...


what are the odds that both sides are equally good/bad on all issues?

 

[lacesaver]

let's do the math...


what are the odds that both sides are equally good/bad on all issues?

Maybe it’s like a never ending game of tug-o-war. There is no real winner, the exciting part is when one side just lets go.......

The odds will always be 50/50. Till something or someone changes. Can you change? Can you let go? Of The way you think.

What would need to change, for change to take hold? Laws? Destruction? Chaos? Understanding? A combination of all? Starting over? Clear the deck?

 

[Excast]

I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that the Democratic party has a fair number of issues and could do much better. But often for me, it's generally the difference between making an honest effort and failing versus what the Republicans offer, which is almost always either ignoring the real world problems of the majority of Americans or making bad faith arguments about them.

Let me throw out a few examples.

Al Franken got kicked to the curb in the span of a few weeks after images and accusations of inappropriate behavior surfaced. We are seeing something similar happen now with Andrew Cuomo. What is the Republican equivalent of that? Roy Moore was accused by multiple women of preying on them as young girls. There were reports he was banned from a local mall because of his repeated attempts to pick up girls there. Despite that, the leaders of the party rallied around him in a Senate race. Hell, Trump himself was accused of sexual assault/harassment and bragged about forcing himself on women, but Republicans wrote it off as "locker room talk". To me, these aren't examples of both sides behaving equally. There is clearly one side that takes these things more seriously and makes the effort to rectify a problem.

How about actual policies to improve the lives of Americans? Healthcare? Tax reform? Covid? Are we going to pretend that both sides treated the pandemic with equal amounts of the seriousness it warranted? That both have made equal attempts to provide affordable, quality healthcare for people? That both sides show equal understanding of the plight facing lower income households? Hell, not a single Republican could be counted on to vote for a relief bill during the middle of the worst pandemic in a century.

So yes, it does get frustrating when people hand out the tired old "both sides" arguments.

 

[Mr Person]

"Both sides" is just about always used dishonestly, and just about always gets deployed to defend the sins of a far worse sinner. They function by focusing only on category of sin while ignoring severity.

Joe punches a man in the jaw.
Bob shoots a man in the jaw.
Both-sider who wants to defend Bob says "both sides are violent!"



It's just that stupid and just that dishonest. It also happens here every day.

 

[CaughtInThe]

The odds will always be 50/50.

what? the odds are 50/50 that both parties are equal on all issues???

 

[lacesaver]

what? the odds are 50/50 that both parties are equal on all issues???

Perhaps 50/50 isn’t a good explanation.

See how I didn’t get mad at you for pointing out, I am wrong. It’s called a misunderstanding. Miscommunication. It happens. Thank you for enlightening me.

 

[Hannu]

I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that the Democratic party has a fair number of issues and could do much better. But often for me, it's generally the difference between making an honest effort and failing versus what the Republicans offer, which is almost always either ignoring the real world problems of the majority of Americans or making bad faith arguments about them.

Let me throw out a few examples.

Al Franken got kicked to the curb in the span of a few weeks after images and accusations of inappropriate behavior surfaced. We are seeing something similar happen now with Andrew Cuomo. What is the Republican equivalent of that? Roy Moore was accused by multiple women of preying on them as young girls. There were reports he was banned from a local mall because of his repeated attempts to pick up girls there. Despite that, the leaders of the party rallied around him in a Senate race. Hell, Trump himself was accused of sexual assault/harassment and bragged about forcing himself on women, but Republicans wrote it off as "locker room talk". To me, these aren't examples of both sides behaving equally. There is clearly one side that takes these things more seriously and makes the effort to rectify a problem.

How about actual policies to improve the lives of Americans? Healthcare? Tax reform? Covid? Are we going to pretend that both sides treated the pandemic with equal amounts of the seriousness it warranted? That both have made equal attempts to provide affordable, quality healthcare for people? That both sides show equal understanding of the plight facing lower income households? Hell, not a single Republican could be counted on to vote for a relief bill during the middle of the worst pandemic in a century.

So yes, it does get frustrating when people hand out the tired old "both sides" arguments.

Thank you for the reply. My point is exactly to support the party that is more clean/better than the other. That both parties sometimes do something wrong and neither is perfect ought to be self evident. If as in previous post said Trump spent much more time golfing than working as president compared to Obama, that is one good reason to support dems. And true, that one party focuses more than other in policies to improve the lives of ordinary people is most certainly a very good reason to support that party.

 

[Mithrae]

"Both sides" is just about always used dishonestly, and just about always gets deployed to defend the sins of a far worse sinner. They function by focusing only on category of sin while ignoring severity.

Joe punches a man in the jaw.
Bob shoots a man in the jaw.
Both-sider who wants to defend Bob says "both sides are violent!"

It's just that stupid and just that dishonest. It also happens here every day.

I'm not sure it's almost always used in defense of the worse sinner. For example when a Trump supporter notices a lie from Biden and starts trumpeting "Look at that, Biden is a liar, you can't trust him!" how are people going to react? Inevitably by pointing out that Trump was a liar and they didn't care about that, so their hypocritical partisan opportunism against Biden scarcely merits further response. Obviously whether the relative severity of the offenses is emphasized or downplayed will depend on which side is perceived as doing worse, but the basic argument is the same.

The flaw in that logic is part of the same issue- the suggestion that two separate issues/occurrences really are one in the same. Example, Trump criticized Obama for ever golfing while president, claiming he would be too busy as president to golf. Then he goes out and golfs 4 times more often in 4 years than Obama did in 8. So did I have to criticize Obama at that time for ever golfing before criticizing Trump for making 275 trips to his golf courses? I don't think so.

George W. Bush played 24 rounds of golf during his presidency, at one time being famously criticized for his "now watch this drive" comment to reporters. Obama played ~330 rounds. Is your hypothetical criticism merely that Trump visited golf courses almost twice as much as Obama (though both still far short of Woodrow Wilson and Dwight Eisenhower)? Or is the criticism instead directed towards Trump's hypocrisy, lying and conflicts of interest? One might certainly make the case that critics of Bush should have been up in arms against Obama, I suppose.

 

[Mr Person]

I'm not sure it's almost always used in defense of the worse sinner. For example when a Trump supporter notices a lie from Biden and starts trumpeting "Look at that, Biden is a liar, you can't trust him!" how are people going to react? Inevitably by pointing out that Trump was a liar and they didn't care about that, so their hypocritical partisan opportunism against Biden scarcely merits further response. Obviously whether the relative severity of the offenses is emphasized or downplayed will depend on which side is perceived as doing worse, but the basic argument is the same.

Well, that's not really the both-sides I'm talking about, which deals with sides as groups. It only really becomes both sides if the person addressing the Trumpist does not call out Biden when he does the same thing.

But we must bear in mind that "the same thing" is often in the eye of the beholder. It's the place where people who want to drop concern about severity and focus only on category.

If I say to someone on DP that they didn't object when Trump did blah blah blah, but are now objecting to Biden doing something like it (but lesser), I'm not saying "both sides do this". I'm saying that Trumpist has no credibility to complain. But I also make sure I complain when people on the left do that thing. (I usually also point out that whatever it is Biden allegedly did, it pales in comparison to what Trump did, so he deserves less blame).

The both sides version of that would be if that person responded "yeah, but you can't attack me for that because both sides do it". <--- and that is a use of both sides I didn't address. The counter-offensive.



Now, we can certainly go down a rabbit hole of supposing that maybe I am misperceiving my own judgments. Maybe. We all face that risk. I'm not saying that's what you are doing in that post. Just... it's there, it's true, but we still need to be able to call a spade a spade