Right, like…presumably if I say something like “the Antarctic circle and the Arctic circle are very alike since they’re both cold and at poles of the planet”, that’s not bothsidesism. If I say “fructose isn’t really any different from sucrose when it comes to being healthy”, that’s not bothsidesism.
Some things in the world actually DO have meaningful similarities despite also having meaningful differences. Someone can’t just say “that’s bothsidesism” and then be done with it. That is a critical ingredient in the provided definition of bothsidesism: that things are presented as more balanced than the evidence supports. To be bothsidesism, the key thing is that evidence. Not the mere claim in itself of two things being similar.
Right, like…presumably if I say something like “the Antarctic circle and the Arctic circle are very alike since they’re both cold and at poles of the planet”, that’s not bothsidesism. If I say “fructose isn’t really any different from sucrose when it comes to being healthy”, that’s not bothsidesism.
Some things in the world actually DO have meaningful similarities despite also having meaningful differences. Someone can’t just say “that’s bothsidesism” and then be done with it. That is a critical ingredient in the provided definition of bothsidesism: that things are presented as more balanced than the evidence supports. To be bothsidesism, the key thing is that evidence. Not the mere claim in itself of two things being similar.