Which side is worse is a matter of opinion. Personally I think they are both dangerous and won’t identify myself with either party as a result.
The result is that there is no point in leveling this accusation as part of a debate about something substantive, unless you just want to derail the conversation into a meaningless partisan bashing match.
Flawed opinions are not all of equal import. Representatives of a political party are not all of equal import. You have to actually evaluate the evidence and act accordingly, even if this puts you on the outs with friends, family, and co-workers.
This all being said, I think the prime driver of partisanship is not analyses of truth or impact but social connections. People are afraid to be exiled from the community they depend on -- their friends, family, co-workers, co-religionists, doctor, grocer, plumber, etc. Just as you can tell a lie more convincingly if you believe it, you can simulate partisan allegiance best by enacting it. If you are going to be ridden out of town on a rail if you are thought to have voted for a Democrat/Republican, then it isn't sufficient to say you voted as the mob prefers; you have to do it. The mob knows this. That's what the Second Amendment has come to be about: having guns to scare your neighbors over to your side. Better to be with the bully than against him.
I am assuming you have to vote or abstain from voting. Then your choice is whether you are trying to achieve changes in the world or achieve a certain self image. If you are trying to achieve changes in the world, and the decision is close, you throw your weight behind the better side. If you are trying to achieve a certain self image, you vote for your ideal candidate whatever is at stake and whatever the balance between the two candidates that have an actual chance of gaining power. Or you abstain and remain unsullied by whatever evil taints each candidate.
As for ‘the lesser of two evils’:
> You have to decide which party is actually telling more damaging lies, taking more damaging actions, or doing more good, and act accordingly.
This is you telling us we have to make that choice.
The "more damaging lies" part is just trying not to be too rosy-eyed about any particular party. Your choices are imperfect, but that's the world we live in.
ETA In case it was unclear, I think political behavior aimed at your self image is vanity and thus self-defeating. Even if your chief goal is thinking better of yourself or getting others to think better of you, forsaking a choice to do good for the world at large in the interest of your own vanity will not achieve your goal. If you want a better image, you should still choose better over worse, not pretty and pointless over ugly and effective.
When you vote, you are forced to make a choice between parties. Nothing forces you to identify with a side when it comes to discussing who is anti-science or not.
What perspectives do you see coming from the Democrat side that have the same mortality rate as vaccine refusal? (Or are there indicators you give equal/greater significance than mortality?)
People commonly make this false equivalence, but as of 2021 it's fair to observe that it's just unequivocally false with respect to the question of respect for scientific consensus. If a lot of republicans disregard science (e.g. believe incorrect things about covid) and a few democrats do it (e.g. believing incorrect things about nuclear safety), people take these unequal examples and proceed claim it means both sides are the same, and believe that they are expressing a sophisticated position.
It's precisely this kind of illiteracy in the ability to assess the relative merits of differently weighted examples that makes the false equivalence possible. This which is why demands for substantiation are relevant and necessary.
I guess you’re arguing with ‘people’ then.
You might want to look into some of the other anti-science ideas strongly propagated by democrats. You don’t seem to have a good inventory. It’s not limited to minor false beliefs about nuclear safety. Consider the belief that there is no such thing as biological sex, for example.
I'm specifically and directly responding to your question of why we should be in the business of judging the relative merits of different claims, and I elaborated by explaining problems with false balance.
Edit, since I can't reply: parent commenter asked "What perspectives do you see coming from the Democrat side that have the same mortality rate as vaccine refusal? "and you replied "why is this question relevant" and I explained why. So I was indeed directly responding to you, despite your continued protestations to the contrary. Insisting that I wasn't being responsive to you is bordering on ridiculous.
> Consider the belief that there is no such thing as biological sex, for example.
I'm pretty comfortable dismissing this out of hand.
Edit: and I'm not missing the point, I understand the role you believe it plays in the logical structure of equating democrats to republicans. I understand that you're invoking the subject of gender and saying it's an example of Democrats being estranged from scientific consensus in a way that's comparable to Republicans being estranged from scientific consensus on covid. And it's at this point in the conversation where I'm no longer attempting to engage with you, and I instead direct my comments to others reading this thread on understanding what false equivalences look like.
I was initially focused on failures to accurately compare differently weighted examples. But there's a different category of false equivalence, where people confidently invoke a completely non-existent scientific consensus. The invocation of gender falls into that category.
That’s not a question I asked.
> and I elaborated by explaining problems with false balance.
Which is why this elaboration isn’t relevant.
>> Consider the belief that there is no such thing as biological sex, for example.
> I'm pretty comfortable dismissing this out of hand.
You seem to be missing the point that it is a common anti-science belief promoted by democrats.
As far as I can see you are just advocating for partisanship. That’s a common position to take, and you are welcome to it.
If you make that assertion, you can’t be upset when people ask for examples or evidence. It’s extremely relevant to the (as of yet) unsupported argument you made.
Republicans are fostering anti-intellectualism which is (in fact) anti-science. From my perspective you'd be alienating yourself out of spite. This goes for Democrats or any political party.