Implicit in that is the false dichotomy that everything perceived to be somehow against American political party A can only be of interest for proponents of American political party B.
And even if that framing was accepted: okay, now we "talk about the other side", but then anything said could be countered with something about this side. It's not pointing out anything relevant, it's rather wiggling a laser pointer.
> everything perceived to be somehow against American political party A can only be of interest for proponents of American political party B.
This is a strange thing to say about someone pointing out that the problem is widespread. It's not a false dichotomy: insider trading is endemic to congress.
Also why would you write "false dichotomy that everything perceived to be somehow against American political party A can only be of interest for proponents of American political party B" when someone is replying to the most unhinged and extreme take:
> > That line of argument... is often associated with pro-Kremlin narratives
If you want to talk about a false dichotomy, maybe someone engaging in ridiculous conspiracy theories about how criticising Democrats can only be of interest for proponents of the Russian regime would be a good place to start?
And even if that framing was accepted: okay, now we "talk about the other side", but then anything said could be countered with something about this side. It's not pointing out anything relevant, it's rather wiggling a laser pointer.