When both sides call you names, you might be on solid ground. What do I mean by that? Well, here are some examples.

Example 1:
To an absoluter, anyone less than an absoluter is a deist. To a deist, everyone more than a deist is an absoluter. If one person is called a deist by the absoluters, and an absoluter by the deists, he might be closer to the truth of the matter than either faction of his detractors.

Example 2:
To a Lordship Salvationist, anyone less is called an antinomian or a proponent of “easy believeism”. But to a hollow logger or noneffectualist (regarding the new birth, ie “no effect”), anyone more than a noneffectualist is called a Calvinist. In reality, neither extreme is correct.

Example 3:
This touches a social issue. An objective, moral person will decry racism but also decry rioting and the breakdown of the family among minority populations, etc. If a man claims there have been horrible, systemic, racial injustices in American history (slavery, Trail of Tears, Jim Crow, etc), he might be labeled by one side as being “woke.” But the same man might be criticized by the other side as a racist for condemning rioters and looters, or the breakdown of the family among minority groups. How can one be both woke and racist? It’s not likely the case, he’s just not in either extreme.

Let your moderation be known unto all men. As a rule, if you find yourself being criticized by both extremes, you’re probably closer to the truth than you realize.