2026-07-25, Bad faith discourse: "Both sides are the same"¶

Introduction¶

Welcome to the first post in my series.

So here's a saying, that if you've seen discourse, espically if you're a lefty, you might have heard, it's called:

"Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds"

and that saying, is an example right here, of a bad faith technique I call "both sides are the same"

I could just end the thing here, but that would be boring wouldn't it?

So... what is the "both sides are the same" fuss?

It means that, according to the speaker, that both sides of a political debate are the same.

A case study: "Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds"¶

This is a common talking point among far leftists, and it usually refers to the belief that liberals will just support fascism when it's convenient, instead of siding with leftists and upholding rights and protections for minority groups.

Another common talking point i've seen is "the alledeged support for minorities is just virtue signaling/perfomantive and they don't ACTUALLY care" (This is also present on the right too)

Now, I'm not here to discount that sometimes, liberal/establishment left will sell out disadvantaged groups in order to get things done, or for policies they want. Is that good? No. Is it every liberal? Also no. But do people use it to try and discredit liberal parties for vairous ideological motives? All the time!

An example of behavior of this style of behavior can be seen in this post:

'Conservatives: "LOCK TR*NNIES IN CAMPS"

Liberals: "Well.. you see.. maybe there is a compromise here and we could view them as second class citizens and let trans people exist seperate from normal society.. but also Leftists aren't happy with this so I guess they want to die.."'

And... this post is 100% utter crap, as here's the thing:

• it's not all conservatives, only an (unfortnately significant and increasing, thanks russia and their disinfo!) ammount of radical extremists and their allies even hinting at (both the former and the latter)
• i don't even know of any liberal who even said the latter, and liberals (at least in the west), have done a decent job at trans rights

It's not just leftists...¶

It's not just leftists who use the "both sides are the same" arguement, but anyone who is trying to defend choices they made that are wrong.

For instance, a dialouge between a centre-left leaning person and a trumpist might be:

"Trumpist: Hey

Sayuri Hormua: ...

Trumpist: what

Sayuri Homura: Have you seen the news lately?

Trumpist: yeah and how it’s full of trump derangement syndromers who act like normal governmental actions are an existential threat

Sayuri Homura: derangement?

Sayuri Homura: Look, there is tons of proof that this is all caused by Trump, and this shouldn't have been suprising, not only did the opposition candidates (the one that you should have voted for) warn everyone about what he will try, but even he himself said he'd do it.

The Trumpist: Oh so you want to listen to your little virtue signaling corperate puppet party who doesn't care about you, and deported more people than trump did

Sayuri Hormua: I never said the Democrats were perfect, and I wish the democrats would do more to stop trump and make things better for the average american

Sayuri Homura: In any case, yes biden and obama deported more people-

Trumpist: So you can't even defend your own party?

Sayuri Homura: but they were deporting people at the border, and weren't using deportation to intimidate and screw over immigrants and minorities, nor were they platforming people who wanted to deport millions without due process, targeting anyone who isn't white.

Trumpist: That's... not happening. Yes we have to deport people (but you do too), but we're just enforcing the law, and the people who want to deport millions? Those are small in number."

Here's the main thing the Trumpist is saying thats relevant to this fallacy:¶

"Oh so you want to listen to your little virtue signaling corperate puppet party who doesn't care about you, and deported more people than trump did"

The Trumpist is saying that the democratic party doesn't actually care about the people, as he knows you care about well... people. He does not actually care, and you and him both know that, he's not trying to say "I care". What he's doing is to... make you atleast, rethink your choice.

Conclusion¶

In both cases shown here, these examples potray liberal/centre-left parties that tend to, albiet with flaws, uphold human rights, and try to make things better, as similar to far-right and dangerous parties. They're trying to get you to think, not nessesarily join their side, but rather to atleast, entertain the idea that maybe they have a point and for you to rethink your beliefs and how you vote.

A good way of seeing if someone is actually acting in good faith or not is to see when they speak on something. If they spend 90% of their time dunking on one side, and when their own side (or in many far-leftists, any party who is centre left/centrrist/etc) gets criticized, the response is "both sides are the same", they're almost certainly acting in bad faith.

A good way of resisting this is to remember, if someone is arguing that a liberal party (that you know is against racism, authoritarianism, and all the other bad stuff on the far-right) is "the same" or "will compromise on human rights to (uphold capitalism/compromise to fascists/etc)", they're either wrong or acting in bad faith, and thus, should not be listened to or engaged with.