The assumption that both sides of this debate are the same is a false equivalence. You COULD insert those words, but the motivations, evidence, logic and history each are using in their arguments are not the same. In fact, experts who study these kinds of movements have immense data showing that one of these factions more heavily engages in rhetoric, while the other does not. I'll leave it to you to decide which one...
Also, while I agree that media is largely biased, it does not mean we cannot use scientific apparatus to discern truth. In other words, watch what you want, but make sure it matches up with the data, i.e. peer review, demonstrable, logically sound etc.
Also, being anti-PC is not really useful because it lumps in causes that actually make sense to support. If your argument was applied 70 years ago, you could have argued against desegregation since the government was calling for it, thus making it automatically PC. In effect, throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Again, the idea that both sides are the same because they fight for a cause is something you have to demonstrate. It's not enough to point at some overlap and conclude that they must be equally dogma ridden. It seems close to how fundamentalists presume that religious beliefs are an equal theory to scientific theory. Afterall, we're all just modeling what we think of the universe, right?....ummm...no
