The idea of "both-siderism" is anchored on 2D politics: you can't have "both-siderism" where there are more than 2 sides, hence my point about viewing politics as 2D.

You're living inside a box and only seeing what's in that box, hence hyper-aware of the difference between those because they're all that you know, whilst I'm outside the box and pointing out that compared to the rest of the Universe what's inside that box you live in isn't actually very different.

It's like I'm talking about "the landscapes of the World" with an Eskimo - you keep insisting that "this icy landscape is very different from that icy landscape" (which I'm sure they are in the eyes of a person who has only ever known those landscapes and nothing else) even whilst I point out that they're both icy landscapes and thus very similar to each other when compared to other kinds of landscapes that do exist in the rest of the World, such as sandy beaches or tropical forests.

Worse, your persistence in closing your eyes to the point I've made repeatedly that there are more sides than just two, leaves me with the feeling that I'm talking to a particularly provincial and simple minded Eskimo who thinks that those differences they're so hyper-aware off between different kinds of icy landscapes are far more important differences that the vastly larger differences between those and the rest of the landscapes that actually exist outside the place they live in.