Against the "Both Sides" Argument.

So specific.

The issue is absolutism. I agree with this guys first point, and with his point about false equivalency. But he is missing the point.

1. I believe that looting and arson being done at Black Lives Matter protests is wrong.

2. I believe that racist violence against Black people is wrong.

Both of these things are true, and I will defend both of these positions. Is this a "both sides argument"? I am not commenting on which of these is worse. It doesn't matter which of these is worse. They are both wrong.

The idea that I can only believe one thing is nonsense. Multiple things can be true and multiple perspectives can have valid points.

Absolutism tries to eliminate any criticism or questioning of an ideology.

Someone may agree with the goals of stopping police violence but question the rhetoric of a political group Black Lives Matter. Instead of inviting this dialog, they are labeled "racist" and the discussion is stifled.

Someone may support transgendered people and believe they have a right to security and respect, but question a policies impact on traditionally female spaces or disagree with changes to English grammar.... being 90% on board with a progressive agenda is no longer OK. Again there is no dialog, only labels.

Someone may believe in vaccines but worry about the impact of vaccine mandates. With absolutists, there is no possibility of this dialog or even an acknowledgment that these are different concerns.

In my opinion, absolutism,, the "one-sided" argument is the real problem in modern discourse.

There are a lot of people comparing to Kyle Rittenhouse with lynching. Of course real lynching was a horrible crime involving a level of racial injustice that is far worse than what we have now.

That is a false equivalency, and I agree that it is a logical fallacy.