No More ‘Both Sides’ BS: Dan Bongino Exposes How the Left Welcomes Assassination Talk [WATCH]. This piece looks at why that message matters now and what it means for political discourse and safety. I break down the issues Bongino raises, the media role, and the practical steps conservatives should demand to stop the normalization of violent rhetoric.
Dan Bongino has made a career of calling out what he sees as hypocrisy and danger in mainstream media and left-leaning circles, and this moment is no different. He argues convincingly that when high-profile voices wink at or fail to condemn talk about harming political opponents, it lowers the bar for violence. That trend does not exist in a vacuum; it seeps into social media, mainstream commentary, and public attitudes about politics.
One core point is simple: rhetoric matters. When influential figures and platforms treat assassination talk as acceptable or comedic, the line between speech and action blurs for people already primed to act. That’s not just theory; it changes behavior and makes targeted threats more likely to metastasize into real danger for public figures and private citizens alike.
Another issue Bongino highlights is the double standard from many outlets and commentators. Stories get framed as isolated or as the fault of “both sides” when a clear pattern shows one political coalition tolerating or amplifying threatening rhetoric. Calling out that inconsistency isn’t a petty partisan move; it’s a demand for equal application of basic standards of decency and safety.
The media’s obsession with false equivalence gives cover to extremists on the left who push boundaries to see what will stick. That posture can be strategic: provoke, measure the backlash, then retreat behind the “satire” or “context” defense when lines are crossed. Conservatives who expect fair play should push back hard because public safety should not be negotiable or treated as a rhetorical toy.
Platforms that host this content carry responsibility too. Algorithms that reward outrage and sensationalism will keep feeding violent talk unless those systems are changed or regulated. Conservatives should demand transparency and accountability from tech companies while pushing for consistent enforcement that protects all citizens, not just favored narratives.
There are consequences for letting violent rhetoric flourish unchecked: intimidation, self-censorship, and the erosion of civil political engagement. When citizens fear for their safety, they stop speaking up and participation drops, which benefits no one except those who use fear as a tool. A healthy republic depends on robust debate that does not require armed protection to engage in public life.
Practical steps matter. Call out dangerous rhetoric when you see it, demand accountability from media and platforms, and support legal protections that deter threats without trampling free speech. Conservatives should build coalitions that insist on consistent norms so that threats are treated as threats, not as political theater when convenient.
Finally, this is about choosing the kind of country we want. We can tolerate a politics where violent talk is passively accepted or we can insist on clear standards that protect everyone’s right to participate without fear. Dan Bongino’s central complaint is a blunt reminder: “both sides” is not an excuse for complacency, and failing to call out those who normalize violence makes all of us less safe.
