One tried and true tactic for suppressing opinions is to slap them with a disparaging label. This is currently happening in the Israel/Gaza conflict with the allegation of bothsidesism, which goes as follows: you have to pick a side, anything else is bothsidesism. Of course nobody likes to be accused of bothsidesism, which is clearly bad. But this is a completely wrong application of the concept. Some may be repeating this allegation unthinkingly, but others are using it as an intentional tactic.

Bothsidesism, aka false balance, is when you give equal airtime to obvious minority opinions on a well-established issue. The climate is a great example, where the fundamental physics, the models, and the observed data all point to a crisis. Giving equal airtime to people claiming there is nothing to see is irresponsible. To be clear, it would be equally dangerous to suppress any contravening views entirely. Science is all about falsifiability.

Now in a conflict, there are inherently two sides. That doesn’t at all imply that you have to pick one of them. In plenty of conflicts both sides are wrong. Consider the case of the state prosecuting a dealer who sold tainted drugs that resulted in an overdose. The dealer is partially responsible because they should have known what they were selling. The state is also partially responsible because it should decriminalize drugs or regulate them in a way that makes safety possible for addicts. I do not need to pick a side between the dealer and the state.

I firmly believe that in the Israel/Gaza conflict both sides are wrong. To be more precise, the leaders on both sides are wrong and their people are suffering as a result. I do not have to pick a side and neither do you. Don’t let yourself be pressured into picking a side via a rhetorical trick.

One tried and true tactic for suppressing opinions is to slap them with a disparaging label. This is currently happening in the Israel/Gaza conflict with the allegation of bothsidesism, which goes as follows: you have to pick a side, anything else is bothsidesism. Of course nobody likes to be accused of bothsidesism, which is clearly bad. But this is a completely wrong application of the concept. Some may be repeating this allegation unthinkingly, but others are using it as an intentional tactic.

Bothsidesism, aka false balance, is when you give equal airtime to obvious minority opinions on a well-established issue. The climate is a great example, where the fundamental physics, the models, and the observed data all point to a crisis. Giving equal airtime to people claiming there is nothing to see is irresponsible. To be clear, it would be equally dangerous to suppress any contravening views entirely. Science is all about falsifiability.

Now in a conflict, there are inherently two sides. That doesn’t at all imply that you have to pick one of them. In plenty of conflicts both sides are wrong. Consider the case of the state prosecuting a dealer who sold tainted drugs that resulted in an overdose. The dealer is partially responsible because they should have known what they were selling. The state is also partially responsible because it should decriminalize drugs or regulate them in a way that makes safety possible for addicts. I do not need to pick a side between the dealer and the state.

I firmly believe that in the Israel/Gaza conflict both sides are wrong. To be more precise, the leaders on both sides are wrong and their people are suffering as a result. I do not have to pick a side and neither do you. Don’t let yourself be pressured into picking a side via a rhetorical trick.