False Equivalence: The Both-Sides Gambit
Position
“Both sides” is usually deployed as a social move, not an analytical one — it signals sophistication while opting out of positions that cost anything. The move conflates aesthetic critique (discourse is degraded) with structural analysis (power is asymmetric). Discourse CAN be degraded across factions while outcomes remain deeply asymmetric.
The Structural Function
False neutrality in a conflict over power is not neutral — it serves the side with more structural power, because disengagement leaves existing arrangements untouched. If one side is actively concentrating wealth and restricting rights while the other is (however imperfectly) resisting, declaring them “equally bad” does the political work of the concentrating side by discouraging engagement.
This is not a claim that every critic who says “both sides” is acting in bad faith. Many are genuinely frustrated by degraded political discourse. The point is structural: the effect of the both-sides posture is conservative regardless of its intent, because disengagement benefits whoever already holds more power.
Centrism as Identity
Centrism as a stable political identity collapses under power analysis. It treats politics as a debate where the highest virtue is sounding reasonable, when the actual game is organized interests using institutions to protect revenue and status. The “center” is not a fixed point — it is wherever the Overton window happens to sit, which is determined by who controls the discourse, not by analytical rigor.
What survives the critique: the demand for concrete mechanisms, skepticism of moral branding, insistence on measurable outcomes. What doesn’t: pretending neutrality in a conflict over who extracts and who gets extracted from.
The Asymmetry Test
When someone claims “both sides are equally bad,” apply the asymmetry test:
- Who benefits materially from each agenda? If one agenda concentrates wealth and the other distributes it, they are not equivalent.
- What is the direction of harm? If one side is rolling back rights and the other is (imperfectly) defending them, the harms are not symmetric.
- What does disengagement produce? If opting out leaves existing power arrangements untouched, disengagement is itself a political act — and it favors the status quo.
Objection Handling
| Move | Response | Concession |
|---|---|---|
| ”Both sides are the same / equally bad / cringe” | Name the asymmetry. Who is actively rolling back rights, and who is (however imperfectly) blocking? Who benefits materially from each agenda? If the harms are not symmetrical, the equivalence claim does the work of the more powerful side by discouraging engagement. | Concedes the discourse is degraded — accepts the aesthetic critique while accepting the debate shifts to whether the degradation is symmetric in consequences |
| ”I’m just being objective / above the arena” | Objectivity requires analysis, not equidistance. A doctor who says “the tumor and the immune system both have a point” is not being objective — they are being useless. Position yourself relative to evidence and outcomes, not relative to “both sides.” | Concedes they want to be fair — accepts the aspiration while conceding that fairness requires examining asymmetry, not assuming symmetry |
| ”The moderate position is usually right” | The moderate position between justice and injustice is partial injustice. Between “workers should control their workplaces” and “bosses should control workers,” the middle is not wisdom — it is half-control. Moderation is a method, not a destination. Applied to asymmetric situations, it always favors the side with more structural power. | Concedes that extremism can be wrong — accepts the caution while conceding the question is whether the situation IS symmetric, not whether moderation is a virtue in symmetric cases |
| ”Accountability means holding both sides to the same standard” | Real accountability requires examining what each side does with the power it has. If one side uses state power to restrict rights and the other uses it to (imperfectly) extend protections, holding them “equally accountable” erases the asymmetry. Apply the SAME standard — but applying the same standard to asymmetric actors produces asymmetric verdicts. | Concedes accountability is important — accepts the value while conceding that equal standards applied to unequal actors yield unequal conclusions |
| ”I refuse the binary / I think for myself” | Refusing the binary does not opt you out of the consequences. Whoever wins the contest that happens with or without you will govern your life. The non-binary move is not disengagement — it is building independent leverage that makes the less-harmful coalition fear you more than its donors: organizing, primarying, unionizing, mutual aid → durable institutions. | Concedes the binary is limiting — accepts the frustration while conceding that disengagement is itself a political act with consequences |
| ”We’re not disagreeing about facts — we just have different values / priorities” | Name the asymmetry in who bears the costs. “Different values” framing treats the disagreement as symmetric, but the wagers are not equivalent in who gets hurt. If one side’s preferred arrangement means inconvenience and gradual change for the comfortable, and the other’s means displacement, precarity, and exclusion for the vulnerable, these are not equivalent “values differences.” Asymmetric harm disguised as symmetric disagreement is the both-sides gambit applied to outcomes. | Concedes this is a genuine values conflict, not a factual misunderstanding — accepts that the disagreement is structural. But conceding “values conflict” does not make the positions symmetric. The honest move is to name what each side’s preferred arrangement costs and who pays |