No, we can not stop with the both sidesing.
We are here in many ways as a direct result of the last admin, particularly the way they threatened tech companies. This moved tech companies to feel emboldened to go all-in on Trump. Don't think I'm justifying that - it's just what happened, in basically the tech bros own words.
The Dems then proceeded to lose to Trump, despite being extremely well funded themselves. They accomplished this through a spectacular series of "own goals": arming genocide, vetoing ceasefires, forcing deeply unpopular candidates, allowing a certain attempted insurrectionist rapist run out the clock on justice [0], awful elitist messaging on the economy, keeping the Epstein files under wraps, etc.
The red side is worse than the blue side, so the blue side demand immunity from criticism. The red side sets everything on fire, on purpose. The blue side prevents progressives from real change. The cycle rachets and repeats. This has been going on for decades, at the cost of millions of lives and trillions of dollars - but people who point it out get accused of saying both sides are the same.
0 - "That Biden was a placeholder president – a stop gap to streamline an aspiring American autocracy into an entrenched one – was obvious by mid-2021. The first, rather large clue was the lack of urgency toward sedition." - https://sarahkendzior.substack.com/p/behold-a-pale-horse-rac...
We should not stop _all_ of the both-sidesing, but we absolutely should stop _some_ of the both-sidesing. Both-sidesing done without both (a) critical thinking and (b) honest intent is simply whataboutism, one of the many forms of societal pollutant that we seem to have fully normalized.
Your second sentence is a great example of the type of both-sidesing that needs to stop.
Your third sentence is a great example of the type of both-sidesing that should not stop.
Your fourth is disappointing conclusion, a strawman to start ("demand immunity from criticism"...) and a false equivalence / faux symmetry as a bonus ("sets everything on fire" & "doesn't support progressive policies" are two sides of _which_ coin, exactly...?)
> We are here in many ways as a direct result of the last admin, particularly the way they threatened tech companies. This moved tech companies to feel emboldened to go all-in on Trump.
I agree - he clearly should have done much more than just threaten.
To be perfectly honest, I actually do think we should stop all the both sidesing - but only after following it to its logical conclusion.
Have _both sides_ actively collaborated in genocide?
... Yes.
Therefore, _both sides_ have breached any recognizable red line of decency. _Both sides_ have breached hard-won national and international law.
Time for something better than both sides unapologetically arming live-streamed genocide.
"Oh, you're one of those single issue guys" - if the issue is genocide, then yes. Why aren't you? Why aren't 98.15% of 2024 voters?
As pointed out below: it's our culture. And that's not okay.
> Your second sentence is a great example of the type of both-sidesing that needs to stop.
I don't see how you can disagree with the simple truth of it tbh. In what way is that not what happened?
> This has been going on for decades
With statements like that, if it’s been going on that long then it’s either our culture and normal way of life or you’re on some QAnon cuckoo rabbit hole.
> then it’s either our culture and normal way of life
That's the one - from an outside PoV the two US parties are two sides of the same coin, barely a perineum twixt them, both ceding the votes of many people to the cash of a very few.
It's baked into the US zeitgeist that it's better to sit back and watch "the government" go tits up and then wade in with guns hoping for a better outcome than it is to properly manage communal resources and common ground.
I disagree with parent, but nothing they stated qualifies as 'dismissable' as 'qanon' level, which btw is one of the key phrases establish to ignore some opinions. It may be incorrect, inaccurate and/or simply wrong, but dismissing it as some conspiracy is.. what is a good way to characterize it.. slightly over the top.