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?