It was a statistical observation. The people who phrase it the way the parent did, usually tend to be on a specific side.

(The other side has its tell-signs as well).

If you are liberal you believe conservatives are greedy, amoral and probably evil.

If you are conservative you believe liberals are stupid and probably brainwashed.

This is America.

You need to evaluate verifiable facts and come to conclusions. In discussion regarding two sides, A against B, you don't just say well each has it's good points, each has it's bad, we have to be fair and balanced. No, this is especially where newspapers have it wrong. You are fair and balanced when you appropriate praise and scorn to sides based on the externally verifiable facts, and the honestness of their actions. You don't blindly give both sides equal footing for fairness.

When a man beats up a wife, _you don't say_, well, look, she probably wasn't the easiest to live with, and he had it tough dealing with her. He is a good business man, and a pillar in the community. so look both sides have positives and negatives. (Well to be fair as a society we usually do, do this, but clearly we are wrong).

No the facts say otherwise.

I don't think the point is advocating some sort of moral relativism but rather to steel-man both sides in good-faith rather than respond to some sort of caricature of each.

Yes i agree caricaturing is clearly wrong. But i am saddened by this group think that all groups of people should be given even standing as all having positives and negatives. People should be given standings based on verifiable evidence with regard to their actions. If your group is composed of bad actors, your group is bad. We don't have to treat you fair and balanced.

And if you're neither, you can see through both charades.