Both-Sides Whataboutism
[Spiderman pointing at Spiderman]
When presented with the problematic behavior of those who rioted at the Capitol on Jan 6, Trump supporters are quick to deflect into questions like:
Why did Nancy Pelosi refuse additional protection? [Narrator: She did not, in fact, do this.]
How come the Capitol police ushered in the rioters?
If it was so awful, why does it look (citing numerous pictures and video) so (mostly) peaceful?
They don't seem to entertain any of the same victim-blaming or dismissive attitudes about the riots following George Floyd's death and the resulting protests. Asking why didn't those store owners take the proper precautions never occurs to them—not that it should.
Likewise, progressives, who are apoplectic in their zeal against all things Jan 6 including President Trump's role, seem willing to ignore the riotous, unlawful behavior of the summer of 2020 from Wisconsin to Portland and beyond. This includes no acknowledgment that political leaders fostered and indirectly encouraged much of the mayhem. More recently their incendiary commentary and name calling somehow doesn't rise to the level of culpable violent incitement that they are quick to ascribe to the other side. And of course it is vice versa all the way down.
The courts, Supreme and otherwise, are only "activist", "excessive", "reckless", and "illegitimate" when their decisions contradict the particular objector's desires. This is despite the same jurisprudence at the heart of many of these controversial judgments. To be sure courts can err in reasoning, and reasonable minds can disagree. But there seems to be no room for that in the minds of ideologues.
Related to this is the desire to have a strong opinion on every political topic. And the corollary that reinforces it is the demand that political opponents should likewise be experts. When they are proven not to be, somehow that is proof they were wrong and you were right. Call this the Argument From Opponent's Ignorance fallacy.
If in order to know if you support a given policy you have to first know what administration or congressional or political party is behind it, you aren't informed enough to have an opinion on the issue. Sure, you can say you'll support it because you trust your side. That's fine as far as it goes, and my arguing that your basis for that is quite weak is another argument altogether. But you cannot claim to hold that particular view with any authority or substance—making me free to ignore your position. You've already admitted your complete ignorance on the matter.
Ignorance is not just allowable; it is the state of nature for all of us. There is no reason to believe you or I can be well if at all informed about countless things. But why is it so easily accepted when the topic is, say, quantum mechanics or metaphysical ethics or heart surgery (for all but a few true and obvious experts) but so impossible in public policy?