Greenwald has eroded most of my respect, but the NYT just made a bid to restore it with this doozy of both-sidesism: “Mr. Greenwald, an ardent critic of Brazil’s far-right president, Jair Bolsonaro, is a deeply polarizing figure in Brazil, where his work is lionized by leftists and condemned as partisan and heavy handed by officials in the Bolsonaro administration.” But this example reveals its inner workings more clearly than most: Greenwald, the left, Bolsonaro, and his administration are just nouns floating in a vacuum. The idea that Bolsonaro’s corrupt and abusive politics caused Greenwald’s criticism, and that Greenwald’s criticism caused the govt’s condemnations, is utterly foreign to this explanation. It’s a basic point, but worth noting: when you see both-sidesism, what missing are the causes. And next time you hear some post-factual, post-this, post-that ‘epistemic crisis’ bullsh*t, remember: it’s just people f*cking around with the word ‘because.’