Both-Sidesism—When Fair & Balanced Goes Wrong
8AnthonyC
2Hastings
1James Stephen Brown
1James Stephen Brown
3AnthonyC
3James Stephen Brown
5Terence Coelho
-1James Stephen Brown
-1Terence Coelho
1James Stephen Brown
1Terence Coelho
1James Stephen Brown
0Mr Frege
4Mr Frege
1James Stephen Brown
New Comment
TBH one of the things I always wonder about is not so much the "sidesism" as the "both." How are people deciding what should count as a side, and why there should be two? And when should something no longer count as a side?
I mean, I get it in practice, there's nothing this self-reflective going on at all and it's all decided by inertia, FPTP voting, and revenue. I still would naively have expected more people on the audience side to have the realization that:
I have observed a transition. 12 years ago, the left-right split was based on many loosely correlated factors and strategic/inertial effects, creating bizarre situations like near perfect correlation between opinions on Gay Marriage and privatization of social security. I think at that time you could reason much better if you could recognize that the separation between left and right was not natural. I at least have a ton of cached arguments from this era because it became such a familiar dynamic.
Nowadays, I don't think this old schema really applies, especially among the actual elected officers and party leadership. The effective left right split is mono-factor: you are right exactly in proportion to your personal loyalty to one Donald J. Trump, resulting in bizarre situations like Dick Cheney being classified as "Left."
Thanks Hastings,
I think at that time you could reason much better if you could recognize that the separation between left and right was not natural.
I think you're saying it was easier in the past to see unorthodox or contradictory views within parties because the wings were more clearly delineated. I'd agree, it was a divided time, but a less chaotic divided time.
The effective left right split is mono-factor: you are right exactly in proportion to your personal loyalty to one Donald J. Trump
Absolutely, it's also bizarre regarding his tariff policy which is wholly anti-free market, that's a point the left didn't pick up on (because of the chaos I imagine) that was obvious to me. As a left-wing (pro-taxation) person myself who also believes in free markets, his approach is so anti-thetical to my own views, as if he took the last good idea on the right (free markets), and abandoned that in order to create a party based on all the bad ideas. This sort of contrarianism is something I've read Steven Pinker write about as a loyalty test (to despots and cult leaders)—the inducement to followers to knowingly lie or act contrary to their own interests as a statement of loyalty to each other through joint faith in the dear leader.
Good point, I guess all-sidesism would be more desirable, this would take the form of panels representing different experts, opinions or demographics. Some issues, like US politics do end up necessarily polarised though, given there are only two options, even if you begin with a panel—they did start with an anti-vax candidate too with RFK Jr (with the Ds and even the Rs being arguably pro-vax), but political expediency results in his being subsumed into the binary.
General elections necessarily do. Coverage of issues does not. Assignment of opinions in the press can be to people and ideologies without pretending everyone in a party shares or should share identical views.
I agree, it seems as though the incentives aren't aligned that way, so it ends up incumbent upon the audience to distill nuance out of binary messaging, and to recognise the value of those who do present unique perspectives.
I agree that Trump is the clear "worse" option in this election, but this post has a lot of left-leaning bias that makes it feel unconvincing. Several examples:
We see false equivalence playing out in the political arena when commentators claim there is “radicalism” on both sides in reference to radical woke leftists quibbling about pronouns in relation to a mainstream right-wing presidential candidate promising to use the military against the “enemy within”.
You took one of the tamest aspects of the radical left here. That quote by Trump is really pernicious but it could have easily been compared to parallel views of the radical left (who e.g. believe that people who voice certain opinions online should be arrested).
See? There's antisemitism on both sides
There is antisemitism amongst the pro-Palestine crowd; getting numbers might be hard but I think the easier argument to make is that Kamala is pro-Israel anyway, just less dramatically so.
There is one candidate, Kamala Harris, who cares about expertise (particularly her economic plan, which is lauded by experts), critical thinking and collaboration (her will to work together on the border with Republicans).
She also took power without a single vote by lying to the American public that Biden was mentally healthy until it was too late to have a fair election. It's hard to believe she would have won the nomination normally, given her 2020 performance. I'm also a little skeptical about her economic plan being that good (aren't price controls in there?) but I don't know nearly enough about economics to know for sure.
I think the best aspect of this post is that Nature study.
Thanks for your comment, the post itself is meant to challenge the reader to question what is really bias, and what is actually an even-handed view with apparent bias, due to the shifted centre. But I certainly take your point, beginning in a clearly partisan manner might not have been the best approach before putting it in context.
I do think there are defences that can be made of the points you raise.
You took one of the tamest aspects of the radical left here
I agree I have taken a tame aspect of the radical left, because there are only tame aspects available. This is my point. The claim you point to, that the left is involved in cancelling conservative voices (not arresting conservatives, as you've clarified this claim is not supported by evidence) isn't any less tame than the accusation of pro-LGBTQ woke-ness. Cancel culture is just a naturally occurring aspect of the free market of ideas (people are free to boycott whatever they like and employers are free to protect their businesses from public backlash). People on the right who usually advocate for free markets should know this best.
The trans issue is a perennial touchstone that has been used as the consistent example of radical left woke-ness for years, and throughout this campaign.
There is antisemitism amongst the pro-Palestine crowd
I don't doubt you are correct that anti-Israel sentiment can stray into anti-semitism. But the point is about motivations, one side is motivated by sympathy for a population with 10s of thousands of people being killed over a year, and millions being displaced and having their homes destroyed, the other is motivated by white supremacy. Do you not see this as a false equivalence?
In short, I think pronouns and Palestine were fair comparisons. 'Cancel' (or 'accountability') culture could well be counted as another valid comparison, with a similar tameness to the examples I did use. The reason they sound so tame is because they are tame, they are not comparable, which is the point I'm making—it is the assumption of both-sidesism that leads people to draw the false equivalence.
But, again I agree that I should have spent some time explaining the problem of both-sidesism and the shifted centre before acting in accordance with the principles with which the post concludes.
I don't know nearly enough about economics to know for sure.
I'm in the same position. It's at these points where I defer to experts, which is what I have advised in the post.
Thanks again for your comment. I hope my comment hasn't been too argumentative, it's meant to explain as an extension of the post.
2I think you misread my post; I didn't mention Kamala Harris' rightful nomination as an opinion of the far left (the far left doesn't even like her). Instead I mentioned something that I can no longer find evidence for and might actually be wrong (that the far left supports people being arrested for far-right opinions held online). I'd like to update this to people on the far left supporting people who have conservative opinions being exposed and fired. I brought up the issue with Kamala specifically in response to your pair of paragraphs describing each candidate.
I don't want to engage with the rest right now because, as I said, I don't want Trump elected and don't want to write anything that would increase the chance of that occurring. I might reply in a few days.
Okay Trump is president now. Hoping that things go well regardless.
The trans issue is a perennial touchstone that has been used as the consistent example of radical left woke-ness for years, and throughout this campaign.
The reason for this is the same reason democrats kept harping an abortion - it's something the majority of the country agreed with them on, and so they could use it to their advantage. It's not necessarily that it was the worst issue, but the easiest target.
I'm a bit concerned that you referred to cancel culture as "accountability culture", but I don't want to get distracted by that here. What I was hoping to get into is that people on the right have done it too when they had power, will probably do so now, and the key difference is that their leader will likely explicitly support it (instead of just being silent about it).
But the point is about motivations, one side is motivated by sympathy for a population with 10s of thousands of people being killed over a year, and millions being displaced and having their homes destroyed, the other is motivated by white supremacy. Do you not see this as a false equivalence?
Yes, but a more careful "apples to apples" analysis is necessary here. Are you comparing the opinions of US politicians on the left with US politicians on the right? Or are you comparing them with randos on the right? If you want to convince people on the right instead of just generating applause on the left, you probably need to do this more carefully.
I'm in the same position. It's at these points where I defer to experts, which is what I have advised in the post.
How seriously have you investigated the claim that "Harris's plan is based on what many top economists think is best" and not "Economists find Harris' plan overall better than Trump's, despite its many weaknesses"? Have you controlled for the likelihood that they have other reasons to prefer Kamala to Trump?
1Hi notfnofn, thanks again for the well considered comment, and for responding to my edited response. I think you've made good points which have revealed clarifications I could have made within the post.
Okay Trump is president now. Hoping that things go well regardless.
Me too. And we'll see if the right-wing and online media's concern that Harris is an equal threat to democracy over the next couple of months. Because if she is an equal threat we shouldn't expect to see a peaceful transfer of power, like when Trump lost. Although, she has already graciously conceded as would be expected of any political candidate except Trump (who has continued to lie about the result of the 2020 election and require his followers and compatriots to do the same) due to the fact that he is held to a different standard. Obviously no one seriously expects Harris to lead an insurrection on the capitol, but they have been convinced that both-sides are equally dangerous, giving a permission structure to vote for Trump.
It's not necessarily that it was the worst issue, but the easiest target.
First of all, I am part of the majority that believe that trans-women shouldn't be competing the women's category in sport. It's dangerous, and undermines the integrity of the category due to the natural physical advantages of being born male, particularly on the extremes.
But my point is, as you say "it's not necessarily the worst issue" whereas the promise to "root out" the "enemy within" is the literally the worst issue. The radical left want to fight for the rights of trans-people in all areas, and unfortunately, I believe, have over-stepped in terms of sport—an entirely optional recreational activity of little to no consequence in my opinion. This is an issue that is adjudicated largely independently of government by international sports' bodies, and I hope that over time a fair and consistent ruling will prevail.
Rooting out the enemy within, on the other hand, is not even considered radical on the right, it's said out loud by a mainstream candidate with popular support. This is how far the centre has shifted.
I'm a bit concerned that you referred to cancel culture as "accountability culture"
I think this is a fair use of both-sidesism, if I'm going to use the loaded term 'cancel culture', I'm going to qualify that this is opposed by others who see this as 'accountability culture'. I'm a believer in the free market of ideas, and my support for this principle doesn't stop when a group of less powerful people collectively use their ideas to combat powerful individuals, I also think companies should be able to act so as to protect themselves from public backlash—I largely believe in free markets in general. Where there are instances of top-down cancelling, which as you mention happens on both sides, I'm opposed to this, and would happily call this cancel culture without qualification. But in my experience that's a small proportion of what people call "cancel culture".
Do you not see this as a false equivalence?—Yes...
Great.
Are you comparing the opinions of US politicians on the left with US politicians on the right?
I'm comparing activists on the left with activists on the right. Both the Democratic and Republican parties profess strong pro-Israel support.
How seriously have you investigated the claim that "Harris's plan is based on what many top economists think is best" and not "Economists find Harris' plan overall better than Trump's, despite its many weaknesses"? Have you controlled for the likelihood that they have other reasons to prefer Kamala to Trump?
The first I'd heard of this was in the debate, as a claim of Harris' that Goldman Sachs and the Wharton School supported her plan, and that 16 Nobel laureates had said that Trump's plan would invite a recession and increase the deficit. This demonstrated her respect for those experts. Trump wasn't able to make any similar claims. Since then I have tried to understand more about tariffs, looking to the Wall St Journal and their explanation of Tariffs, Trump's own interview with John Micklethwait, where he claimed the room full of economists didn't understand tariffs, and this interview with The Economist Editor in Chief Zanny Minton Beddoes where she underscores the strength of Harris's plan relative to Trump's.
These are all respected, relatively right-leaning sources who all agree with Harris, and who's opinions are respected by Harris, as opposed to Trump who has shown disdain for the opinion of the majority of these experts, in favour of his own expertise, borne out of his experience going bankrupt 6 times. I expect that when developing their plans, this same respect for expertise was also at play. So, I think I've investigated this claim seriously enough to have a fair opinion on it.
I'd like to thank you again for this response. I believe you've raised important clarifications that I will consider making in the text itself. As you might know, this cross-posted from my blog, and the blog is actually a series of webpages that I edit continually comprising a growing philosophical framework, and I will likely attempt to make it more ever-green by relying less on a current event. Posting here helps guide my editing process by getting critical feedback from smart people like yourself, so I appreciate your time and efforts.
Good arguments support some claim. Bad arguments provide little/no support. Some arguments are so bad that they support the opposite claim. This is one of those.
1This comment received a lot of backlash. Admittedly, my comment wasn't as diplomatic as it might've been nor did I elaborate on my own reasoning. In my defence, I didn't think the original article was making much of an effort to get at the truth (see other criticisms above). Rather, it is a (very) one-sided account advocating that we should not consider the other side of the story (ie, it is an attack on both-sidesism).
The attack on both-sidesism is consistent with findings referenced in the video below. Both sides are prone to such anti-democratic behaviour, but the findings also suggest that one side is "slightly more willing to sacrifice democracy (by supporting actions that benefit their own party at the expense of democracy)". This might be a case in point.
Feel free to watch the whole thing, but the tldr part starts at 4:05.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVqjH6MaqRY
The events of Nov 6/7, 2024 might support the argument that the original argument was indeed self-defeating; ie, an argument against the argument against both-sidesism---effectively, an argument for both-sidesism.
Thanks Mr Frege for clarifying your points. As I have mentioned (in other comments) I've conceded that I probably should have contextualised my own abandonment of both-sidesism before taking a partisan approach that makes my post appear more biased than it actually is, and probably colours the way it is read.
advocating that we should not consider the other side of the story
Okay, I definitely should have clarified that this is not my intention at all. Both-sidesism, as I'm referring to it, is creating a false equivalence between two issues and giving them equal weight regardless of their validity. I am strongly for considering the other side of the story. I think it is important to steel-man your opponent's position, and your comment has revealed that I failed to do this in the post. I should have made a clear case for both-sidesism further than merely stating that it is "well intentioned", before addressing the problems with it. Thank you for your feedback on those two points, which seem obvious to me in retrospect.
Both sides are prone to such anti-democratic behaviour, but the findings also suggest that one side is "slightly more willing to sacrifice democracy
This was interesting. It provides a counter to the Nature study referenced in the post, which makes sense when considering the different methodologies, specifically what they count as equally anti-democratic actions. I have some ideas about how one could interpret these results, but after writing them down they were pretty lengthy, and would invite a larger argument that I don't really have time for. I think the study provides an important lesson to learn—the danger of accusing your opponent of something leading to justifying your own doing of that very thing. This is something I've called negative moral licensing.
The events of Nov 6/7, 2024 might support the argument that the original argument was indeed self-defeating; ie, an argument against the argument against both-sidesism---effectively, an argument for both-sidesism.
I'm afraid I can't quite parse this point, I'm not sure if you're saying the election results support my post, or the contrary, and either way, I'm not sure why the result would support either position.
Thanks again for clarifying your points. As you will see I've taken on board a few of your points. Hopefully this has been a worthwhile interaction for you, it has for me. Happy to hear your thoughts on the negative moral licensing post if you get around to reading it.
Curated and popular this week
