[nerdponx]

I'm not sure if this is a corollary or a counterpoint to what you're trying to say here, but not all agendas are equivalent.

One person's agenda might be to make as much money as possible irrespective of consequences. Another person's agenda might be to decrease asthma rates. The fact that both people have some kind of agenda is basically irrelevant.

This is the same hole as in the classic "both sides" political attitude.

[debacle]

The Democrat party drummed up the "both sides" argument as cover for them turning their backs on the grassroots activism that got Barack Obama elected in 2008. In the same way, the modern focus on racial issues in the US is directly correlated with quelling the anti-classist Occupy movement.

The lesser of two evils is still evil.

[nerdponx]

Source? Those are strong claims. I'm cynical enough to find them plausible, but they're strong enough that I'm not willing to take them for granted.

[astrange]

I'm pretty sure "bothsidesing" (aka Murc's law) is from the Bush administration, but don't know where to find evidence.

Was Occupy class-based? They were intersectional progressive/anarchist/professional activists, so essentially they were in favor of everything ever and habitually unable to prioritize. That combined with their official policy of not deciding what their demands were destroyed themselves pretty effectively. (They also had "progressive stacking", which was like an early form of DEI liberalism.)

Class-based leftism wasn't really popular till Bernie though.