Well.....Well....Well...

[Dill]

(06-27-2018, 12:27 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I never really understood why people would overlook both sides do something and/or say the other side is worse. I mean, I know the reasons why, but still, if something is bad and both sides do it, why then talk about the other side being worse? Why not just focus more on saying it's unacceptable no matter WHO does it?

That is a good question in today's political environment, where equivocation frequently obscures voter understanding.  At the level of the individual, one can agree that bad behavior is unacceptable no matter who does it, but still see a point in determining, at the group level, whether one side "does it more," because frequency of bad behavior in individuals may have something to do with party culture, how certain behaviors are legitimized by default of criticism or even actively encouraged.

Further, while there is sometimes a clear symmetry when comparing one individual from one party to one individual from another, that rarely holds at the party level.  If one party were to become progressively more uncivil and undemocratic, finding examples of uncivil and undemocratic behavior on "both sides" would do more to legitimize than reverse that negative trend.

I am proposing analysis first here, and blame later, if such is warranted: this is distinct from simply looking for opportunities to reverse blame outside of any analytic framework. A claim that one side really does it more should be an empirical claim which can be tested, and worth testing if people want to understand why one side does it more, assuming they do.