If you read your own link carefully you will see how it is not even describing the type of fallacy you’re trying to talk about. You want to criticize people who are claiming that both parties are untrustworthy representatives. But your link says:
“bothsidesism, is a media bias in which journalists present an issue as being more balanced between opposing viewpoints than the evidence supports”
Notice that this (1) isn’t about ANY situation where someone claims “these opposing viewpoints are actually very similar”, (2) is about viewpoints and not entities, but must importantly:
Just because it is an issue for two things to be presented as more balanced than the evidence supports doesn’t mean that its impossible for there to ever exist two things which present themselves as different but are actually very similar.
Right, like…presumably if I say something like “the Antarctic circle and the Arctic circle are very alike since they’re both cold and at poles of the planet”, that’s not bothsidesism. If I say “fructose isn’t really any different from sucrose when it comes to being healthy”, that’s not bothsidesism.
Some things in the world actually DO have meaningful similarities despite also having meaningful differences. Someone can’t just say “that’s bothsidesism” and then be done with it. That is a critical ingredient in the provided definition of bothsidesism: that things are presented as more balanced than the evidence supports. To be bothsidesism, the key thing is that evidence. Not the mere claim in itself of two things being similar.
Both sides bullshit propaganda.
If you read your own link carefully you will see how it is not even describing the type of fallacy you’re trying to talk about. You want to criticize people who are claiming that both parties are untrustworthy representatives. But your link says:
Notice that this (1) isn’t about ANY situation where someone claims “these opposing viewpoints are actually very similar”, (2) is about viewpoints and not entities, but must importantly:
Just because it is an issue for two things to be presented as more balanced than the evidence supports doesn’t mean that its impossible for there to ever exist two things which present themselves as different but are actually very similar.
Yo dawg, I heard you liek bothsidesism, so did some bothsidesism in my critique of bothsidesism…
Right, like…presumably if I say something like “the Antarctic circle and the Arctic circle are very alike since they’re both cold and at poles of the planet”, that’s not bothsidesism. If I say “fructose isn’t really any different from sucrose when it comes to being healthy”, that’s not bothsidesism.
Some things in the world actually DO have meaningful similarities despite also having meaningful differences. Someone can’t just say “that’s bothsidesism” and then be done with it. That is a critical ingredient in the provided definition of bothsidesism: that things are presented as more balanced than the evidence supports. To be bothsidesism, the key thing is that evidence. Not the mere claim in itself of two things being similar.
There are no 2 sides as they both represent capital over the working class.