"Both sides" as a definition, before you ever make comparisons, is already a diminutive of reality. The idea that there are only ever two viewpoints, despite the reality of the current American political situation, is naive at best. Even within the two major US parties there are fractious and conflicting personalities.

The "both sides" argument isn't asinine because it equates the two major players, its asinine because it accepts their premise that they're the only ones that matter.

The media cares about one thing: money. Outrage=views, and they'll report whatever they think will generate the most outrage.

Image Transcription: Tumblr

mikemaeshiro

[A screenshot of a twitter post which is transcribed below]

Rebekah Jones, @GeoRebekah

Everyone seems to agree that a revolution is long overdue in America

One side wants to bring back slavery, nazis, fascism, and women not being allowed to vote or own property.

The other side just wants healthcare and education.

The media thinks these two things are equal.

Well one side helps the rich and the other hurts them

But one side helps their viewers and the other hurts them

So I can see both sides

The issue is that there are sides. And only 2 at that. Neither serves the people very well or we would have sane healthcare costs, wages, housing, transportation. We would also not have as much pollution in our air, soil, and water. "Both Sides"cater to political campaign donors above all else. That is the problem.

Strong strawman we got here. Weird how these are the only things being fought over and not anything else.

This is very cherry-picked issues they've included here though. Yes, of course no one with a brain is thinking of these issues specifically when they say that. Both sides are bad, both are hypocritical, both break rules and want their rule breaking to be ignored when it's to their advantage. One side is worse, doesn't mean both sides aren't bad.