A+ “both sides” argument here.
I agree that "both sides" should not call for journalists to be curb-stomped.
I agree that "both sides" should not call for journalists to be shot on sight.
I agree that the message boards of "both sides" should not cheer a shooter killing journalists. mediamatters.org/blog/2018/06/2…
Both sides really need to stop posting Nazi dog whistles into official government documents, is something I'd really like to see minimized, on both sides.
Rope Tree Journalist: Some Assembly Required shirts I think are very disturbing to see at rallies for both sides, and both sides should really take a hard look at themselves. 
I think it's very bad and dangerous for the president of a country to call journalists "the enemy of the people." I agree that this is totally an observable problem, for both sides.
One side: We must water the tree of liberty with the blood of the Lügenpresse.
The other side: Hey, motherfucker, that's seriously dangerous talk.
Me, observing, very dispassionate: "Oooh, um? 'Motherfucker' is not a good way to convince people? washingtonpost.com/news/worldview…
The other side: Hey, motherfucker, that's seriously dangerous talk.
Me, observing, very dispassionate: "Oooh, um? 'Motherfucker' is not a good way to convince people? washingtonpost.com/news/worldview…
Anybody making a 'both sides' argument right now is actively trying to assist the rapid expansion of violent-minded fascism in this country, or else is actively trying to avoid the discomfort of confronting it.
Those are both sides of "both sides."
A curse on both those houses.
Those are both sides of "both sides."
A curse on both those houses.
