"Both sides" is when you equivocate two things which are not equal, you're looking for "whataboutism" which is not an actual fallacy, claiming "you're doing whataboutism" was a PR tactic first used by British colonizers when Irish people brought up British violence in response to anti-IRA propaganda.

[–] eldavi@lemmy.ml 19 points 4 days ago (2 children)

it get that they're both bad faith ways to shut down discourse and i can see how whataboutism fits; but i was referring to the false equivalency placed between the nato's atrocities and that of the soviet union's in the comment

when it's "both sides" is brought up to shutdown arguments that the democrats have done some of the same things that the republicans did; they're likewise implying that the democrats have fewer of such incidents than the republicans and therefore the argument is invalid.

this was my half snarky way of saying that this comment is a "both sides" example can be applied in the opposite direction where it neuters the effect that "both sides" has with liberals.

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 12 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Sorry, I often fail at snark perception

[–] eldavi@lemmy.ml 11 points 4 days ago

i think it's better that you say something if it's not clear for the people who lurk through all the interactions.

[–] ShimmeringKoi@hexbear.net 11 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

Im not the person who replied to you but I picked up on what you meant

[–] comfy@lemmy.ml 7 points 4 days ago

fwiw, I suspect Hexbear users expect snark more. It's basically the default mode in a bunch of comms.

[–] eldavi@lemmy.ml 7 points 4 days ago

i keep forgetting to use tags.

[–] NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

I would submit that sometimes "whataboutism" can be related to the issue of topicality in a debate, though. If not addressed properly topicality issues will inevitably derail a discussion as is their nature.