- cross-posted to:
- leftymemes@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- cross-posted to:
- leftymemes@lemmy.dbzer0.com
You must log in or # to comment.
On the other hand, the kneejerk of labeling every even remotely centrist viewpoint as inherently dishonest is pretty annoying. My own views lean SocDem and I’ve found voicing any opinion which is neither solidly left-wing or solidly right-wing, especially if it does not align with very American-centric views of the political spectrum, often elicits unpleasant reactions. Nuance is hard, I guess.
As an anarchist. The seething hate I’ve received for pointing out. That the genocide in Palestine is truly an appropriate both sides thing. That it wasn’t just Biden or just Harris. That it was our senators, our Congress people, and the executive branch.
That it was going to be a Republican or a Democrat that won the presidential election. And we all would definitely prefer it wasn’t for the Republican. Or that if Fox News covers you without wildly editorializing or smearing you. You done fucked up. You could be forgiven for thinking I had just strangled their grandmother’s from the reaction.
Could you give an example of a centrist viewpoint that you’ve voiced that would be labeled as inherently dishonest?
Being in favor of mixed economies, with stock markets, venture capital firms, but also universal healthcare and protection for unions. Being against American style basically unregulated firearm ownership (which seems quite popular on both the far left and far right, yet maybe not so much in the middle). And I feel free to criticize the actions of parties or politicians across the political spectrum, not just those on one side. I understand many people, especially the political left which I sympathize more with, are very angry these days. Justifiably. So am I. But being accused of being dishonest just for having a different point of view is annoying.
I genuinely appreciate that response thank you.
deleted by creator
Thanks. I suppose I should add I’m not American. Perhaps the takeaway is no two-party political system, such as in the US, can have a “political center” because the respective “left” and “right” parties seem inevitably to become opposed to each other on every issue? Things are different in Europe, where multiple parties can support the same policies, but to different degrees or funded differently.
Plenty of EU political parties which are labelled center-right on Wikipedia aren’t completely dead-set on destroying the entire social safety in the same way the Republicans are in the US, for example. Although they simultaneously might call for reduced benefits and lower taxes.
Also, many EU countries have what I would consider actual left-wing parties in parliament. On some issues I would consider myself slightly right of Germany’s “Die Linke” for example.
deleted by creator
them: “both sides bad” me: “republicans are bad indeed” them: 😠
If libs take the stance that you’re either fully on my team or you’re my enemy then it’s going to be a long time until you win some elections and have the ability to make real policy. Democracy is about compromise and appealing to as many voters as possible. Truth is whomever gets the independents wins the elections in the USA, everything else is just noise and excuses.
This would be all very well and good in principle, except that this assumption has now already been factored into mainstream Republican strategy. It’s now an everyday occurrence for them to say something absolutely outrageous based on the expectation that the “compromise” will be struck exactly where they want things to be.
I mean, I understand that this is like a very prevailing thing, but centrists exist. Especially in a modern political climate that is this polarized, being a centrist is unbelievably hard to explain to people. The left is convinced that they are very people first and very centrist and the right is convinced that they are very right and very populist.
I mean basically what I’m saying is that this actually emphasizes a problem and people just blindly agreeing with this is also a problem. I would venture to say that most people can’t recognize an actual centrist as opposed to just immediately assuming them to be a right winger. This has happened for over 10 years in my daily life. Before Donald Trump even started running for president, in 2013, I had people accusing me of being either left-wing or right-wing, when in reality, I am very much a centrist. If I use any political buzzwords to identify myself whatsoever, I will then be put into a category that which does not properly define me. I despise the Democrats, I despise the Republicans, and I despise Donald J. Trump. I don’t think anyone in the last 10 years in the entirety of this government has been worth even considering for my vote for president.
But who am I? I’m just one guy.
Please don’t hate me for saying this. I just, I see this meme and I see the comments and I just think, wow, this must be a bunch of people who have experienced like, you know, those weird people who liked Trump but no longer like Trump. My point is that like people continue to say that there’s no such thing as a centrist and I’m not saying that you people are saying that I’m saying that that is a prevailing idea and I’m sick and tired of it and this meme and your comments very much seem to perpetuate that.
Anyway, I’m done. I hate politics because it’s terrible. There’s nothing and no one to vote for. No cause to get behind that will ever truly fix it just by voting. Get active in your community, physically, and improve things on a city-wide level. And then if a ton of people do that, we’ll actually see change. That is if these tariffs don’t literally destroy our entire economy. #AmericaisrecessionproofsolongaswethreatentheFederalReserve
Disliking politics and all the current political parties doesn’t fit the technical definition of a centrist.
It’s not that centrism can’t exist, it’s that it’s commonly used as a thin pretense to cover actual partisan leanings, usually right-wing (by the general global metric, not just the US one).
Additionally, abstinence isn’t commonly a good approach by which to assert a legitimately central stance. A lot of the time a legitimately central stance doesn’t exist in a practical sense.
As stated by a commenter above “The middleground between racism and not racism is 50% racism”.
I personally think the concept of “centrism” isn’'t viable, not because nuance and context can’t exist but because the “center” often isn’t a useful target.
Okay, I actually agree with you on a lot of what you have to say.
Having certain dislikes of politics and to actually dislike facet of both political parties currently and having dislikes of both current political parties in order for them to be close to the center, which is again what a centrist is.
I completely agree. I think that people using the term centrist as a vague cover for what is usually fairly right wing politics is prevalent and a lot of people have seen this. YouTube personalities and posts on x / posts on blue sky / posts on freaking truth social they all claim to be centrist or they all claim to be a more “common sense voice” when they in fact aren’t and this is very prevailing and I’ve seen this myself.
My own political journey has been extreme frustration and an understanding that both sides of the political aisle in the United States specifically are so ungodly terrible that I cannot bring myself to actually cast my ballot for anyone. That is a bit of an aside because that is only my own political experience, my own political opinion. I’m not going to cast my ballot for somebody who is actively corrupt or actively making stupid choices. So that is an aside and kind of detracts from my point, to be honest.
I think likening racism to political centrism, which is, again, what you are agreeing with, is not an apt comparison. You’re agreeing with a commenter above that said “the middle ground between racism and not racism is 50% racism” Being a centrist in that agreeing with some stances of the conservatives and agreeing with some stances of the liberals is not the same thing as being 50% racist. Not at all. Being 50% racist could mean that you agreed with the South advocating for slavery as a way to keep the prices of cotton down in the United States but disagreed with slavery because it involves back-breaking labor without any payment to these poor people, you know, the slaves. The comment is honestly another thing that just shows the degradation of the political system in the United States down to two camps and two parties. It’s the idea that the entire right is effectively racist until they can prove it, and the entire left is somehow communist, and pedophiles. Then if you happen to be a centrist, if you happen to be in the middle, as I’ve met many centrists, they exist. And again, it is probably the most viable of all of the political ideologies, if not for corruption and political manipulation to herd the population into either Democrat or Republican sides.
Me saying that I believe that we should only spend money that much we can actually tax from the population, and that if we continue to spend money to an obscene degree, then we are going to have a very difficult time in the world economic stage. That is true economic conservatism. Many people who claim to be conservatives, many people who claim to be far right, many people who claim to be, you know, a middle ground right, they don’t believe in this form of conservatism. And most of them on the right don’t practice what they preach.
So I guess that’s one example of a stance that I take. And this idea that the middle ground is somehow, you know, partially siding with Donald Trump is extraordinarily stupid and just leads to people attacking each other for like no reason. Which is ultimately what I think Donald Trump stands for, which is just a bunch of people fighting in a metaphorical street fight. I agree that centrism generally isn’t viable because there really isn’t a political party that you can vote for and we only have a two-party system which again has fueled corruption in Washington and corruption in the States. I think that centrism only isn’t viable iIf you take into account the political corruption, if there was less political corruption in Washington, if third parties were viable, which again is a far shot off from the reality that we currently live in. But still, if third parties were viable, then political centrism would, I think, be in many ways, Where the vast majority of people’s political voting would land because I think the vast majority of people are actually just centrists forced to choose a side in a corrupt political system. Thanks for responding to my comment
i think we are mostly in agreement, though I’ll address a couple points of contention on my side.
I think likening racism to political centrism, which is, again, what you are agreeing with, is not an apt comparison. You’re agreeing with a commenter above that said “the middle ground between racism and not racism is 50% racism”
I wasn’t necessarily trying to equate racism with political centrism, i was using that comment as an example of how the idea of ‘centrism’ isn’t always a viable or practical one.
it could just as easily have been “The middle ground between wet and dry is 50% wet”.
Then if you happen to be a centrist, if you happen to be in the middle, as I’ve met many centrists, they exist. And again, it is probably the most viable of all of the political ideologies, if not for corruption and political manipulation to herd the population into either Democrat or Republican sides
But you can see that this reads " This would be the best option if it was possible, but it isn’t, currently " ?
I agree with the sentiment, though i disagree that the optimal location is the “centre” , as i said before.
And it seems you agree given the follow up about the partially siding with trump being ridiculous.
As i was saying before i don’t think centrism is a good label for what you are describing because it isn’t really the centre of anything, it’s some other thing on a whole spectrum of things.
I think that using the label “centrism” hurts any argument significantly more than it helps and coming up with some other , more accurate way of describing your position would greatly benefit any discussion around that area.
But labeling and categorising things is hard, especially in a concise and descriptive manner and as you say modern political conditioning tends towards thinking in rigid boxes.
As a complete aside (and a contrived , though i’d say accurate description):
In an effective two party system a vote that doesn’t correspond with either of the two sides is effectively a vote for the ultimate victor.
This isn’t a commentary on the politics of either side, i mean this as general statement on how voting would effectively work in that kind of system.
Assuming you agree with that point of view, how do you reconcile the potential ethical and moral outcomes of not voting at all ?
Genuine question, zero baiting.
In a nutshell, what this meme is about is all the people that we’ve run into who say, “both sides are bad,” because they believe the Republicans lies about Democrats, and the Republican talking points on issues. Actual centrists, in Republican lingo, are “the far left.”
I agree with this stance. It’s very hard to be a centrist, even though most people are. In today’s political climate, everyone has just decided that they must be Democrat and Republican because that benefits the Power elite, the people who are already in power, and those who use this power to try and solidify themselves as staying in power. To the Republicans, the centrists are far left, and the Democrats, the centrists are far right. It’s honestly extremely stupid that people are not really capable of seeing, you know, an actual stance, as being an actual stance, and instead just use a bunch of political buzzwords and repeat phrases that you hear all throughout the left and the right. This has led people to throwing metaphorical mud at each other in the streets and hating their neighbors, as opposed to talking it out. Just like in this thread, I mean, everyone’s down-voting my comment because they’re uneducated about what centrism means, at least that’s probably what I think they’re doing, and or they believe that they’re supporting the Democrats. (maybe they believe in my hate monger?) When in reality, political centrism is where most people’s stances lie, and that the political parties are basically saying, hey, choose a side guys, just choose the better poison of the two poisons on the table. Politics is terrible, as I said before.
this is very convenient this just means im always correct because everything else is just a right winger as if that’s argument.
Life would be better for everyone if right wingers would just shut the fuck up and keep their hands to themselves. But they just want to hurt everyone else, so their opinions are worth less than moose shit. When a right wing fuck is talking, there’s only lies to hear.
Fuck them all.
is this not a very progressive nice thing to say. maybe just maybe don’t be a fucking hypocrite. try being consistent in your values then just maybe someone would take you more seriously. advise from a centrist.
I’m fully consistent in my values, so how about you try to practice what you preach for a change?
what should that be exactly? do tell very progressive person. im not the one pretending to be so fucking virtues that everybody else is an evil Nazi if they disagree with me. its just hiding behind the pretense of virtue and then acting like how a fucking Nazi would its hypocritical bullshit your no better than any right winger your so angry about. that’s what makes this so funny. you are what you hate.
Just another conservative troll, eh? Projection is so passe, get a new bit.
dude you are just confirming what i said nothing i have said shows my political leaning. you on the other hand smear that shit over everything. you do not know what a troll is. you just call people conservative when they disagree with you. you really like categories because that makes everything so much easier its a fucking joke. i find this hypocrisy very entertaining. the inconsistencies in your believes make you very funny.
how much have you reposed this? this is only done by people with no good arguments.
I’d rather have a politician who does absolutely nothing than a fascist.
Yes, this is how the two-pronged strategy works to ensure the working class never improves its standing.
Fascism only improves the standing of those on top.
deleted by creator
But unfortunately not one that my fellow Americans seem to have appreciated.
I have never met a “centrist” on social media who wasn’t. Same with the horseshoe theory.
Let’s take America: are you for democracy or against it? - “I can see both sides” - wtf? Fascist enabler, at best.
I prefer stethoscope theory.
You’re in the meme idiot
They did a U-turn!
Bothsidists are right-wingers
3 posts later
No the horseshoe theory is real actually
Is this a psyop or are you dumb?
This stethoscope diagram just reeks of a rebranding attempt similar to how Libertarians were adamant that they were not just Republicans yet somehow still only voted Republican and would support Republicans in all things even if it explicitly went against libertarian doctrine.
Horseshoe theory is more accurate. Hard left is tankies. Tankies are hard left.
Horseshoe theory completely ignores the actual origins of the terms Left and Right in order to push a false narrative that they’re somehow the same.
It’s very simple. The terms Left and Right come from a vote held in the French Assembly just before the Revolution.
The vote was, “should the King have an absolute veto over laws passed by the Assembly?” Those sitting to the Left of the Speaker’s podium said No, those to the Right said Yes.
Knowing the true origin of the terms makes defining them easy, if you are in favor of more power to the people, then you are on the left, if you think power should be concentrated to the few, you’re on the right.
This can apply to social issues as well. If you think minorities deserve protection and representation then you are on the left, if not you’re a horrible person.
The economy, if you think everyone should have a truly fair shake, you’re on the left, if you think money makes some people better than others, you’re on the right.
See how easy that is? Which is why the right wing invented Horseshoe theory. To confuse people.
That and some dictators flat out lied about what they were doing and claimed to be Communist.
Because Lenin betrayed the Revolution after losing the only free and fair election that Russia has ever had.
So you go into a conversation about a modern topic where the modern definition of terms is a particular thing, and then you said “well ackshually the definition of this in 1780 was this so you’re wrong”.
I don’t think anyone cares what the definition of left and right are in 1780s France and it has no bearing on a modern discussion of these terms.
The point I’m making is that the trough line has always been, Right-wing concentrated power, Left-wing distributed power.
The fact that certain dictators have pretended to be left-wing, and right-wing jackasses have gone along with it, is where the deliberate confusion was introduced.
Communism as proposed by Marx is a true leftwing ideology, the Totalitarian dictatorship created by Lenin was communist in name only, it had more in common with Feudalism than communism. Mao was just as bad. An out of touch dictator who told farmers to plant their seeds several feet underground, and when that obviously failed, feasted while they starved.
That doesn’t seem anything like what Marx wrote about, or rather it was disturbingly similar to what Marx wrote about capitalism.
But again, right-wingers love to confuse the issue, because it turns out kings are not popular, so you have to lie to get people to bow before one.
Some people just cannot wrap their head around the difference between totalitarianism and socialism.
But I will say this: viewing political opinion on a straight line never really made much sense. At the very least one should think of it as a field (2 dimensions instead of 1). And of course this does NOT mean that I approve of the horseshit theory.
Every time I try to come up with a different metric, it usually boils down to, “where does the ultimate power lie”.
In an ideal democracy, that power comes from the consent of the governed, i.e. the people and their direct vote. But that’s usually untenable on larger scales, so thus power is concentrated. The how of that concentration can lead to all sorts of axis on a chart, but in the end, the other side of the chart is usually some form of direct democracy, i.e. returning power to the people.
The meaning of words change over time, that’s the same for “left” and “right”
You’re framing the “right” to rewrite the current meaning with the historical meaning, which just doesn’t work.
It scares me that there are so many upvotes on this. Misinformation is on both sides, and you’re comment is proof of that.
What are the current meanings of left and right?
Complicated question. There is no fixed definition, and this is multi factorial.
To put it simply, I’ll say
Left: equality (economical, social, no discrimination), more state centered, ecology, at the price of private property (specifically private property of companies, factories, means of production) and less freedom (individual rights and economical).
Right: more freedom (specifically economical), stronger (traditional) culture, patriotism/nationalism, less state centered at the price of less equality (limited help if you don’t succeed).
Overall that’s not strict, and there are a few examples of that: non-conservative right (doesn’t seem to exist in the USA).
It’s also important to say that people often have ideas that are a bit of both sides: ex: more economical freedom (right), but no patriotism/nationalism (less right), but more equality in terms of identity (gender, ethnicity…), democracy (can apply to both left and right)
Let’s break down your idea of the “right” because it does need to be analyzed.
You say “more freedom”, but you never actually specify who gets more freedom except in a backhanded way of contrasting your idea of the left, who limit the freedoms of companies.
This is an important point. The Right gives companies and the rich, more freedoms, which in historical context has always meant more freedoms to exploit, or even kill their workers in the name of profit. This conversely means less freedoms for actual people who don’t want to die or be poisoned by some rich asshole who wants to make a buck.
You also say Traditional culture, which has always meant more rights to rich white men and fewer rights to minorities and women. Or maybe you want to couch it by saying a push for more religion, which then means less protections for the people who practice the wrong religion.
But you see how every single point goes back to more power for some people at the expense of everyone else.
This is not a bug, this is a feature. Edmund Burke and Joseph de Maistre both wrote about how this was the desired outcome, and how democracy was a threat to “traditional values” and how the idea of equality was, in their words, repugnant.
There is a direct through-line from those two bastards to every single conservative thought leader of today, and many of them use the exact same talking points.
We’ve learned by this point fascism is an inherently right wing ideology.
If you seriously think the Nazis were socialists or Stalin was a communist then you should just accept you like fascism.
I have never read a more nonsensical piece of logic in my life.
Ok Ms. Rand
😘
That image isn’t saying that they aren’t hard right. It’s saying the standard spectrum of left right doesn’t account for how practically similar the two extremes actually are in how they operate.
Bear in mind that we are actually talking about extremes at those ends of the shoe. Genocidal dictators. Trump is not Hitler or Stalin. He’s not that far around the horseshoe, yet.
deleted by creator
Liberalism is enlightenment?
Nah centrism is also bad. There’s really only one good small wedge of the horseshoe.
Congrats on becoming a parody of yourself. “Here’s a diagram made in MS paint that shows how stupid all this ideology stuff is. Anyway, only my tiny sliver of the graph is good and the rest of you are all doo doo brains. I’m so very smart and enlightened.” Please touch grass, I promise it will improve your mental health.
You sound like an idiot.
So the diagram is saying Socialism and Conservatism are the same?
I’m guessing it was made by someone who identifies as a Liberal, seeing as according to the diagram it’s the only correct choice, as everything else is closer to Fascism.
Also note: while a diagram can help explain an argument, it is not an argument by itself, as there is no reason for someone to believe it is true by default.
I’m guessing it was made by someone who identifies as a Liberal, seeing as according to the diagram it’s the only correct choice, as everything else is closer to Fascism.
Yep. Some people really think lack of opinion is some form of enlightenment, that they stand above things because they say “I can see both sides” to everything.
That’s not what’s meant at all. The real thing is this one:
It just means that far left and far right are closer to each other than one can think, in the fact that they both lead to an authoritarian or totalitarian system.
It is obviously an over-simplification and inaccurate, but is mainly a way to criticize both extremes
I’m guessing it was made by someone who identifies as a Liberal, seeing as according to the diagram it’s the only correct choice
Probably. Being in the center doesn’t mean you’re correct, but yea, it seems pretty biased
Where do you consider anarchist philosophy to be on that graph? That is an idiology that is both far left (collectivist by nature) and libertarian (no central authority).
I don’t know enough about anarchism but it seems indeed that it doesn’t nicely fit into the “left, right” classification.
I’d argue it should be classed to the left
I would personally put it under the “far left” category, since anarchists strive for drastic, radical change, completely demolishing capitalism, whereas more moderate social democrats, for example, want to maintain our capitalist economic system, but with tweaks around the edges.
At the same time, anarchism is just about the furthest idiology from authoritarianism that exists in the context of modern society.
The left is more than just socialism and communism.
And the right is more than just conservatism and facism
And all of it is utter shit.
The world is shit
Let’s burn it all! 🔥
Anarchists are far left. Tankies are far right. Hope this helps.
How does making a false statement help?
This is why I fucking hate the political spectrum.
The left wing is for state managed finances, and putting the collective ahead of the individual. The right is for completely unrestricted economic freedom, and putting the individuals desires far ahead of any collective need. Meanwhile, we also tend to associate social freedom with the left, and conservative tradition with the right. So which of these systems defines anarchists?
It’s just a false dichotomy, and we need to stop simplifying everything to a binary. The 4-point grid is “better,” but it’s honestly just time we stop reducing complicated and nuanced ideologies into “this or that.”
deleted by creator
We need a political tesseract with 4 axes
deleted by creator
Trying to describe politicial idiologies on a graph is just a pointless endeavor.
deleted by creator
Tankies are far left. You can go wrong on both sides. You could also technically go far right without being a complete dictature
Left and right isn’t as simple as “good” and “bad”
You are in the meme lmao
Proponents of horseshoe theory argue that the far-left and the far-right are closer to each other than either is to the political center. Seems like a theory a right-winger would create to save face.
I will say, some far leftists have ideas that seem more libertarian on a surface level, like dismantling the state, but it’s for different reasons, and generally far-lefts aren’t common. What Americans consider “far left” is just advocating for common decency
Thr horshoe no longer exists today in any meaningful way, but it did for a brief moment pre tea party. There used to be a group of people that believed in both universal health care and understood risk pools, and would not directly vote to restrict personal rights. Pretty small group now.
There used to be a group of people that believed in both universal health care and understood risk pools, and would not directly vote to restrict personal rights.
You mean social democrats (or just slightly left leaning Democrats for USians)? TIL they are a mixture of extreme right and extreme left.
Thr horshoe no longer exists today in any meaningful way
Never did. Because it’s a theory.
I can only tell from down votes that people are either young, or grew up on the coast.
What does any coast have to do with this topic? Is this some sort of US-defaultism?
Or age, for that matter?
I note that you did not address my argument btw.
They’re not political, they just wantt to see common sense policies on immigration (for brown people) and crime (for brown people).
Here “common sense” means incredibly harsh.
Which is a shame because immigration can be one of the greatest boons to rural America.
What if I’m a centrist insisting both sides are garbage?
Then you’ll be down-voted because people are stupid and don’t want to have an actual conversation about things. However, apparently trying to ask to have an actual conversation about things is now a Republican strategy, which is again exactly what the liberals are complaining about, and both of these idiotic stances (down-voting people when they’re just trying to talk and then refusing to talk about things and on the other side, making talking about things a sorda political issue) is terrible. The Liberals shall come and droves and downvote you. Except that comment that I just said is now going to be interpreted as a Republican leaning stance. Common sense has been completely abandoned by both sides, not in its totality, but just enough so that there is a kind of metaphorical street fight and that there is mud slinging and that the general population has no idea how to actually solve any of these real-world problems that we are facing. Donald Trump is probably not going to be ejected from office as I think he should be. And, frankly speaking, I don’t think that the Democrats have any reasonable candidate to run in the next election. On top of this, most of the Democrats are going to roll over an allow project 2025 to take hold because the Democrats don’t really care. I mean, truly, you get them down into a room and I’m betting you that they don’t really care. And the Republicans, they’ve all rolled over to Donald Trump’s stances and now all we have is a bunch of far-right yahoos and a bunch of leftists who aren’t really leftists (I.e. Give me more political donations, billion dollar corporations!!!)
But anyway, I’m sure that’s going to be a lot of people who misinterpret my comments because, frankly speaking, most people are idiots.
My entire on a bridged point is thus. Both sides are garbage.
You’re literally who the meme is about.
Oh it goes both ways then, cool. I’m okay with that.
Subtle.
As long as you’re amoral and self-serving, you can only be a “right winger”, whatever that means. It’s only when you dispel the myth of moral relativism and believe that, yeah, some things ARE wrong (and we should avoid and condemn them, of course), that you can start becoming a person worth existing and worth listening to. And if you’re not very smart nor very brave you might be a “non radical” “leftist” but hey, your heart is probably in the right place so I’m not gonna hate (too much).
It’s only when you dispel the myth of moral relativism and believe that, yeah, some things ARE wrong (and we should avoid and condemn them, of course)
You can be a moral relativist without equating someone else’s view of morality to your own. Or rather, while still only valuing your own.
This is some crazy doublethink shit. It’s clear just looking at the inconsistent interpretation from all the top-level comments that ‘centrist’ is a blanket term that both describes ‘centrist’ positions and also ‘left/right radicals’. The only consistent is whether the subject is subjecting the in-group to criticism
The same user constantly harps on ‘far-left’ progressives complaining about democratic positions, and calls himself a centrist.
This is just standard ‘out-group’ gatekeeping. “If you’re not with us, you’re against us” shit.
“Bothsides types are indistinguishable both in form and in end-result, regardless of whether they claim to be centrists or leftists”
“This is crazy doublethink shit!”
The same user constantly harps on ‘far-left’ progressives complaining about democratic positions, and calls himself a centrist.
what
Wait, are you talking about both sides as in the political parties, or both sides as in far left and ‘centrist’ secret nazi?
Still sick of this blaming apathetic voters for the clear failure of the Democratic Party. You had mentioned that harm mitigation trumps all moral consideration of choice. That’s short term thinking, one that has gotten us in this mess. If democrats want to play chicken putting ‘their’ progressive voting base against their neoconservative principles, that is a failure on them. Their actions after losing further prove their deficit. I warned you specifically during the election what the outcome would be because of how the democrats acted.
Still sick of this blaming apathetic voters for the clear failure of the Democratic Party.
Bruh, a third of the country sat at home and did nothing as fascism, openly stated, ran to claim all levers of power in the government. If you think voter apathy isn’t a serious contribution in this issue, I don’t know what the fuck to tell you.
You had mentioned that harm mitigation trumps all moral consideration of choice. That’s short term thinking, one that has gotten us in this mess.
Sorry, am I suppose to prioritize the feelies of people who abstained over the millions of marginalized people who are going to die because of this administration?
Sorry our lives aren’t pure enough to be worth your fucking vote.
If democrats want to play chicken putting ‘their’ progressive voting base against their neoconservative principles, that is a failure on them.
This was the most left-leaning Dem platform in fucking decades.
But hey, anything to avoid responsibility for voters ushering in fascism, right?
You mean the Democratic Party sat around and assumed they could further their own power grab because the American people had no choice but to vote for them. You mean the Democratic Party is currently sitting around doing nothing… wait, no—they are actively censuring their members who are talking truth to power. That’s much worse than if they did nothing at all.
If you’re going to blame someone, blame the ones responsible for fascism. Then blame the ones who gambled our future to further the agenda of their donors. The party knew they abandoned their progressive voter base. They miscalculated, and now they’ve doubled down. Fuck. Them.
I explicitly told you that the Democratic Party pushing neocon policies and pushing “vote blue no matter who” WOULD CAUSE VOTER APATHY. Voter apathy is a symptom, of direct democrat action. I told you I would vote for Harris—UNDER EXTREME DURESS.
What do you mean “the most left-leaning Dem platform in fucking decades”?
Fucking Bernie Sanders ran in 2016. Harris, against all reason and hope, stated directly that she would not change Democratic policy—the same policy that has ratcheted us to the right for decades. Biden, in his time as president, failed to achieve anything when he specifically had the windows to do it. So no. That is an outright lie.
Well you’re just wrong about most of this
absofuckinglutely.
This was the most left-leaning Dem platform in fucking decades.
And yet you still lost. Guess it wasn’t left enough.
Maybe this time you could avoid the national socialism and put foreigners into the equation, asshole.
We voted, alright. it’s called a vote of no confidence.
Bothsides types are indistinguishable
… Yea, see there it is. “Bothsides types are indistinguishable [in the way they criticize my party]”
[in the way they criticize my party]
What
Don’t be dense. Define ‘bothsides type’ that includes all subsets of the group you’re talking about. I’d bet pretty penny it isn’t limited to people who use the phrase ‘both sides are exactly the same’.
I’m gonna guess this is pretty close: ‘someone who criticizes the democrats without clearly signaling their electoral support of them’
Or, put another way:
[in the way they criticize my party]
Don’t be dense. Define ‘bothsides type’ that includes all subsets of the group you’re talking about. I’d bet pretty penny it isn’t limited to people who use the phrase ‘both sides are exactly the same’.
Those who present of all major sides of an issue to be indistinguishable because they are both flawed, with the implicit or explicit exhortation to support neither, when there are obvious and important differences between the two with one being unambiguously preferable.
I’m gonna guess this is pretty close: ‘someone who criticizes the democrats without clearly signaling their electoral support of them’
I mean, harm reduction is not morally optional, but criticizing the Dems without signaling electoral support is not inherently a “BOTHSIDES” reaction, excepting, say, in the immediate lead-up to an election of unusual importance wherein the only realistic options are fascism or the Dems.
When there is an immediate crisis coming up, wherein messaging is extremely important, and you choose to amplify messages that help fascists without bothering to amplify messages that damage fascists, it’s difficult to see that as anything except service to fascism.
As a foreigner, I think dems are genociding scums and now when I bump into americans here I am as aggressive as they deserve
When there is an immediate crisis coming up, wherein messaging is extremely important, and you choose to amplify messages that help fascists without bothering to amplify messages that damage fascists, it’s difficult to see that as anything except service to fascism.
“If you’re not with us, you’re against us”
Democrats wanted everyone to shut up about how much was wrong that needed fixing so that they could win, and leftists wanted democrats to acknowledge how much was wrong that needed fixing so that they could win.
Throwing the leftists in with the right-wingers assumes that the rest of the country wasn’t already feeling the pain the democrats were trying to suppress.
Those who present of all major sides of an issue to be indistinguishable because they are both flawed, with the implicit or explicit exhortation to support neither, when there are obvious and important differences between the two with one being unambiguously preferable.
Lmao, here’s what this reads like:
A person who complicates a binary political choice at politically inexpedient moment by pointing out a flaw present in both binaries
No wonder American politics has regressed into pure symbols and signs.
“If you’re not with us, you’re against us”
That is literally what a FPTP election results in, yes. I see this is still taking time to sink in.
the “obvious and important differences” are obvious and important to you because you drink the left’s koolaid while the right drinks your milkshake.
the reality is that the Democratic party exhausts it’s voters’ emotional reserves, and consequently is ineffectual at winning hearts and minds, Then they blame the public for apathy.
That is a strategy that is basically guaranteed to put fascism in power. Who knew?
The centrists knew. And when we tried to engage you in conversation about it, you ridiculed and attempted to maneuver with rhetoric, instead of truly engaging.
the funny thing about this is - or sad, maybe, I’m not sure which - is that centrists often have the emotional wherewithal to handle extreme situations. We’ve been dealing with extremes all of our lives. We see how they feed into each other because we actually grapple with the things others would rather blame other people for. We see that what the left is doing is ineffectual. We see that what the right is doing is vile. We act on it - actually take action, not protest - in the ways we can, in our own lives.
So… …if the right wins, and it really goes poorly, it’ll be a fucking shit time for all of us. But it’ll be beyond that - it’ll be hell for you who have ridiculed others instead of growing, because not only will you have to face the physical reality, you’ll have to face the psychological and emotional realities you always refused to, in the middle of everything else going to shit.
Grow, or suffer. Grow, or repeat. That is the law you are bound by, and yet you don’t make a rational choice.
deleted by creator
you drink the left’s koolaid while the right drinks your milkshake.
Who knew?
The centrists knew.… What the fuck? Is this that ‘anti-woke’ bullshit I keep seeing spewed on late-night talkshows? There’s nobody left in the fucking center. I only partially agree with you - democrats think it sufficient to pound the drums of ranbow-capitalism, when it’s the capitalism part that voters are actually livid about. Apathy doesn’t happen when their ‘emotional reserves’ are run dry or whateverthefuck, it happens when they give up on the democratic party for making actual substantive changes. You think anyone gives a fuck about infrastructure spending when billionaires are running rampant, buying public platforms to manipulate public attention and building toy rockets so they can make-pretend that their astronauts? Fuck no. The fact that they instead spend their media time scaremongering about social issues is secondary to the fact that they’re doing that while the country becomes a playground for the egos of oligarchs. Yes, trans rights are under attack and we should protect them, but that’s not a substitute for addressing the systemic changes that are making everyone miserable.
We see that what the left is doing is ineffectual. We see that what the right is doing is vile. We act on it - actually take action, not protest - in the ways we can, in our own lives.
Lmao is this a parody? Take action in your own life… How? by mowing your fucking lawn? Imagine if the civil rights movement didn’t bother protesting and instead dedicated their time toward… what, emigrating out of their homes in the south? Boycotting the segregated cafes they weren’t allowed into? “Protesting is lame” says the centrist that definitely isn’t over-privileged prick
But it’ll be beyond that - it’ll be hell for you who have ridiculed others instead of growing
Grow into what?? What even is the centrist vision for the democrats? More child tax credits and free vaccination programs? That’s your big vision to defeat fascism? GTFO lmao
The middleground between racism and not racism is 50% racism. That being said, they probably mean centrist in different topics. Blame two party system not the people.
Removed by mod
Nuance is inconvenient to radicals and fundamentalists.
The word nuance doesn’t belong in a discussion involving genocide.
Or princess bride meme.
The US has little nuance. Your dominant parties are Fascist and Far-Right Neoliberals with some token LGBT rights.
He’s a troll, don’t bother.
I’m not American, luckily.
Seems like the left don’t approve of common sense.
