In the emotionally charged aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, a pervasive narrative has emerged, one that seeks to attribute blame equally to “both sides” of the political spectrum. However, as Greg Gutfeld incisively points out in a recent discussion highlighted by Dave Rubin, this “both sides” argument is often a deceptive tactic, particularly when one side is demonstrably at fault. Gutfeld’s observation provides a crucial lens through which to understand the often-manipulated discourse surrounding tragic events and the broader political landscape.

Rubin, sharing Gutfeld’s perspective, emphasizes the inherent flaw in equating differing ideologies and behaviors. “It is the dumbest possible analysis to say both sides are exactly the same,” Rubin asserts. “Republicans and Democrats are different. Conservatives and liberals are different. They are different. They behave differently. They come to conclusions differently.” To suggest otherwise, he argues, is not only intellectually dishonest but also offensive to anyone capable of critical thought.

Gutfeld’s “rule of thumb” on this matter is strikingly simple yet profound: “When they say it’s both sides, it’s their fault because when it’s your fault, they just say it’s your fault.” This principle, as elucidated by Rubin, suggests a strategic deflection. When those in power or on one side of an argument employ the “both sides” rhetoric, it often signals an attempt to dilute their own culpability and prevent a focused examination of the true instigators or underlying issues.

This strategic obfuscation, Rubin contends, serves as “perfect food for the Democrats and their I suppose purported leader Barack Obama.” He cites a clip of Obama suggesting that “on both sides, undoubtedly there are people who are extremists,” a statement Rubin labels as “extraordinary dishonesty.” Rubin challenges Obama’s assertion that such “extreme views were not in my White House,” arguing that Obama’s administration was “filled with Islamist jihad-loving, social justice warrior, woke, racist lunatics.” This stark contrast highlights Rubin’s belief that the “both sides” argument is selectively applied, often to shield one’s own perceived failings while simultaneously painting the opposition with a broad, negative brush.

The timing of this “both sides” narrative, particularly in relation to Charlie Kirk’s assassination, is not coincidental, according to Gutfeld’s analysis. “The second something happens like Charlie Kirk, who is the leader of the young conservative movement, not he’s not even conservative… who’s the leader of the young pro-America movement in the country, when he gets assassinated, they automatically want to say it’s both sides,” Rubin explains, reiterating Gutfeld’s point. The intention, he argues, is to prevent a clear focus on the actual perpetrators or the motivations behind the act, thereby diffusing blame and hindering accountability.

This intellectual sleight of hand, Gutfeld and Rubin suggest, is a critical tactic in contemporary political discourse. By framing events as products of universal extremism, regardless of actual facts, it becomes difficult for the public to discern genuine threats or assign responsibility. This allows for a comfortable, albeit misleading, equilibrium where no single entity is held truly accountable, and the severity of certain actions is downplayed.

Rubin concludes with a powerful call to action, urging individuals to recognize these manipulative tricks and to actively speak up. “What would be one way to deal with this right now? One way to deal with it would be for you, person on the other side of the screen right now, to start speaking up,” he implores. He believes that a “spiritual awakening” is occurring in the country, with more people recognizing the need to challenge these narratives and demand greater clarity and honesty in political discourse.

In essence, Gutfeld’s observation, amplified by Rubin, serves as a vital reminder to scrutinize the language used in political commentary, especially in moments of crisis. The “both sides” argument, while seemingly balanced, can often be a tool for obfuscation, designed to protect those in power and deflect responsibility. Understanding this distinction is crucial for anyone seeking to engage meaningfully with complex societal issues and to advocate for a more transparent and accountable political environment.