What is the two sides exactly? There is a group that has produced no evidence for their claims and is threatening and acting out violence - is that one of the sides?
There is a point in which a particular group is no longer acting in good faith, and is taking advantage of the tolerance and ability to have discourse.
Yeah, I finally had to stop having discussions with MAGA family members because the complete lack of good faith. Because they are family, I would listen and then spend time reading their sources and gathering facts and information to have a real discussion around, and as soon as their beliefs in a topic were challenged they would fall back to 'what about Hilary's emails' or Hunters laptop. It just became pointless to have a discussion.
It's cult like. I can't imagine supporting any side or politician like these people do.
Side a: 2016 US election was stolen. 2020 was fair and square.
Side b: 2020 US election was stolen. 2016 election was fair and square.
Seems that there are a small number of people who think a) both elections were stolen or b) both elections were fair and square. They are being drowned out by sides a and b.
If you fit side a or b above, you might want to some logical thinking. Pretty simple to see the two sides are simply opposite sides of the same coin, both deeped in hypocrisy.
2016 also had open violent attacks on democratic process to certify president election, remember? Riots, destruction of property in November and December 2016? Calls for electoral college voters to switch their votes. Ring a bell?
You have to pay more attention to what both sides were arguing.
In 2016, side A was arguing that the inputs to the election (voter opinions) were manipulated by foreign agents. This claim was 100% proven true by the Mueller report. Whether this actually changed the results of the election is impossible to say (I am of the opinion it was Comey's announcement 11 days before the election which tipped a close election toward Trump). But an effort was made, and that effort was for the benefit of the Trump campaign, and was explicitly supported by the Trump campaign. See: Mueller report Vol I, or Senate Intelligence Committee report on Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential election (5 volumes).
In 2020, side B was (and still is) arguing that the output of the election (the actual vote total) was changed. This has been shown to be false by repeated recounts, audits, investigations, court cases, etc.
If you think these two scenarios are identical, look a little closer.
Hilary Clinton used the term "stolen election" throughout the last four years, including 2020. That's not an input, it's an output. People - including the media - called Trump an illegitimate President for 4 years. That's not an input, it's an output. Perhaps you should be the one paying more attention instead of getting defensive when your hypocrisy is exposed.
You can try to spin it or rationalize it all you want, both sides are behaving the same.
Literally only one side stormed the capitol during a joint session of congress in an attempt to overthrow the election, so "behaving the same" is stretched pretty far here. By pretending both sides are the same, it would appear you are the one spinning and rationalizing.
I mean, let's not forget that Donald Trump of all people called into question the results of his own win in 2016 by claiming that 3 million people voted illegally, and that people were being bussed to New Hampshire to vote against him. He even formed a commission to investigate this "fraud"! So any impressions that the vote was illegitimate were flamed by the winner himself!
There is a point in which a particular group is no longer acting in good faith, and is taking advantage of the tolerance and ability to have discourse.
https://kottke.org/17/08/the-paradox-of-tolerance