You must log in or register to comment.
Found the source:
Okay I read the source now and what I found funny is the part where people describe how “moderates” on dating apps are just conservatives. An observation I can regard as true in my experience, they are just self-aware enough to not be dismissed outright, but not self-aware enough to actually change a thing about themselves and become a better person.
Remembering how dating apps for conservative people tend to go down (only dudes, because what chick would engage with those guys…), I find it funny to see this echoed here again. There is, after all, no middle ground on most social issues anymore and we do good to see moderates as just another trick of conservative rebranding to obfuscate what they truly are.
There is, after all, no middle ground on most social issues anymore
There never was, unless you consider supporting desegregation but not interracial marriage a middle ground I guess.
Middle ground on social issues: “Separate but equal”
Some of them genuinely seem to be in some weird form of denial I can’t understand. I lost a friend from his slide during covid who would fit this. Self identified moderate who only ever defended right wing views and the worst of the grifters.
I experienced this recently with a coworker who talked himself in circles about how he cared about facts and logic and agreed with both parties on different issues. But…he spat out Republican grifter speech over and over (basic biology!) and talked about how he watched these “debate me” idiots online who showed how Democrats “barely ever back up their arguments with logic” while the Republicans apparently do (you probably know the ones, they’re famous grifters but I don’t remember their names), as if these guys wouldn’t simply edit out everything but the most extreme people to use as evidence for their claims.
I have a line from a song I like to use when talking about these sorts of people: Spread the facts out like a fan on the floor, throw away the ones that make you feel bad.
Cognitive dissonance is a requirement for this kind of thinking.
Removed by mod
Okay I read the source now and what I found funny is the part where people describe how “moderates” on dating apps are just conservatives. An observation I can regard as true in my experience, they are just self-aware enough to not be dismissed outright, but not self-aware enough to actually change a thing about themselves and become a better person.
This is DEEPLY VALIDATING thank you
Removed by mod
As it should be! After all, self-validation is far more important than winning elections.
and being condescending to leftists especially when they are correct and it makes you annoyed you can’t come up with good rhetorical counter arguments that hold together logically… is the MOST important!!
Removed by mod
My hero!
Who the fuck cares? Biden isn’t in office anymore. Judge by what he accomplished instead of pretending you all know him personally.
Right now we have a literal fascist in office. Something tells me that’s a bigger issue. We can play the blame game all day, but unfortunately what’s done is done and the time to take action is yesterday.
The Progressives and Democratic Socialists who once voted Democrat (or who voted Democrat anyway) probably care a lot that they are disenfranchised by Democrats.
Judge by what he accomplished
Getting said literal fascist elected by doing fuck all to solve the problems he said he would, gave said fascist a pass by assigning a mealy mouthed investigator, and hanging out in the race long enough to help depress turnout?
We can play the blame game all day, but unfortunately what’s done is done and the time to take action is yesterday.
We also need to understand why we got to this place, and saying “who the fuck cares” just emboldens the Dems in power to keep trying the same shit that doesn’t work.
We also need to understand why we got to this place, and saying “who the fuck cares” just emboldens the Dems in power to keep trying the same shit that doesn’t work.
We already know how we got here, which is why it doesn’t help anything to bitch and moan about how “both sides suck”.
Quit your bitching and infighting and blaming everyone else, and focus on what we can do now.
We already know how we got here, which is why it doesn’t help anything to bitch and moan about how “both sides suck”.
Clearly, given how the power structure is doing things differently, right?
Quit your bitching and infighting and blaming everyone else, and focus on what we can do now.
Yeah, try to get the establishment to understand a lesson on what failed and have them finally back policies that will encourage people to show up so I don’t have to spend 6 months begging people to vote for them because they fucked the dog yet again?
We can co-create a new system as this one falls apart.
How does it solve anything beyond the shortest of terms to keep seeing salvation in a party thats been creeping right in line with the Fascists for half a century?
What will your opinion be in another 5-8 years when the Democrats have followed the Overton window into calling for extralegal deportations of naturalized citizens and Republicans are just calling for the whites to shoot the non-whites in the street with impunity?
“Better support the Democrats, they only want to deport those people to foreign prisons not execute them on the sidewalk! Get that both sides crap out of here!”
-You in 5 years, probably.
The Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee called for using far-right candidates “as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right.” Clinton’s camp insisted that Trump and other extremists should be “elevated” to “leaders of the pack” and media outlets should be told to “take them seriously.”
Hillary Clinton, the DNC, and mainstream media also played a pretty big role in Trump’s rise to power back in 2016.
Yep, I’ve bitched about that for the better part of the intervening 8 years. Still not sure if the establishment learned the right lesson from 2016.
Most people aren’t even aware. I’ll keep pushing that fact even if it angers people.
We all loosely share responsibility for Trump rising to power and maintaining said power, and the best way to remove his power is to pull the wool away from everybody’s eyes.
The Democrats do not represent the people or workers and they will not fight for anybody or anything besides capital. No matter how progressive they brand themselves in the future or how much they claim to want to fight oligarchy.
They have zero plan or power — they are not serious actors and my assessment of them has nothing to do with purity testing. You are either focused on solutions or you are not. We need solutions imminently — we need a new system.
Well, they’re the only other game in town unless you want to sit back and let the fascists take power because people stayed home like they did this year, our hands are pretty much tied come election day. And that is a fact I will keep repeating as long as people refuse to understand that our country is run via electoral politics and no amount of sitting out will change that.
I’m all for getting better candidates on the ballot, but when the only alternative is naked fascism, telling people to stay home or not vote for them is a great way of shooting your pet causes in the foot.
Have you ever heard of gambler’s ruin? It’s the name of a few different results in statistics, but the one we want is this:
In statistics, gambler’s ruin is the fact that a gambler playing a game with negative expected value will eventually go bankrupt, regardless of their betting system.
Now in modern US elections, does your bet have a positive or negative expected value for democracy? Is America becoming more or less of a democracy every election on average? Apply the theorem above to your answer and see what you get.
Now do not voting/non-participation. Is that increasing democracy? Is it leading to positive outcomes? Does it lead to outcomes that are even marginally better than voting?
Comparing voting to gambling is asinine, since not gambling has no effect on you, but not voting does not. And whether or not my vote increases democracy, not voting doesn’t increase it either and leads to outcomes like we have now.
It’s a cute idea, but that’s about it and only really makes sense if you choose not to be pragmatic in the slightest.
Well clearly we are already almost at a breaking point just 112 days after the start of Trump’s presidency. He is ignoring due process and established rights, he is foregoing his oath to uphold the constitution, and everybody in the administration is openly breaking laws left and right. The administration is also arguably in criminal contempt of court.
Personally, I don’t think we’ll even make it 2 years into the presidency before protests of a massive scale or a collapse.
1/3 of the country doesn’t vote in the presidential election, 2/3 are propagandized or coerced into voting for the duopoly. There are many, many people who voted for Trump that likely don’t approve of him now. There are many, many people who voted for Kamala who likely didn’t actually endorse her, they just didn’t want Trump.
If a revolution or similar event is going to happen, it’s during this presidency. Otherwise there will be no facade of democracy left to participate in when the next election is supposed to come around. The Democrats aren’t going to save us, the answer isn’t to sit back — the answer is to create a new system.
But the problem is that this is the exact problem that led to the fascist taking office. The most historically unpopular president plagued by every possible crime and scandal, and the democrats run a Republican. That is why they keep losing. They keep people even remotely left of Republican, like Bernie and AOC, at arms length (at best) from the party, while propping up Joe Biden and Nancy pelosi (almost literally). And then they keep saying “this is the most progressive ticket in history!”
They’re selling out any possible goodwill hey had. Which was very little, if any. And then they turn around and point the finger at us. All while capitalizing on the fascists taking office and capitulating to their agenda, while the talking heads go on to and say “the problem is the party got ‘too woke’ and forgot about the everyday Americans!”
They have clearly failed at this since running a fake progressive in Obama, who also proved everything by running a legitimately progressive campaign in 08 and won by historic numbers. I’m not going to say it was the money behind the party that made them stop even pretending they give a shit…but it was (most likely). They are not a legitimate opposition party. And when the choices are between one of two, well that’s a massive fucking problem. And they’re not addressing it.
So, yes. There is a fascist in office. But if this foundational problem doesn’t get solved and the dems keep moving right (while the OW concept of “right” has shifted so far away from center), then the fascists will continue to radicalize, pulling the entire Democratic Party rightward with it.
That is a problem that needs to get solved before we can get a fascist out of power. Unless we’re talking…like, gonzo style.
We just need an entirely new system.
The Democrats will never be truly progressive and they will always tease at being socialist. They don’t even address major crises, like the housing crisis, the health care crisis, or the economy — they sit there and gaslight us while playing the blame game to excuse their inaction.
We need progress towards solutions, and they can’t even address the issues. How can they work towards solutions if they can’t come up with any?
In France we have a saying “Si t’es pas de gauche, t’es de droite” i.e “if you’re not a leftist, then you’re on the right wing” meaning that if you do not explicitly reject the paradigm supported by the right then you’re implicitly accepting it and thus indirectly support right wing and conservatism.
Seems a bit suspect and authoritarian…
Does it work in reverse? If not, why not?
My first thought was, that’s just GWB’s “if you are not with us you are against us”, with different words.
I think the French saying is a response to rising Fascism. If Fascism is taking power in your society and you do not directly and explicitly oppose it, then you are at the very least going to be tacitly supporting it. By definition, centrism cannot fight Fascism, because it will always “both sides” the problem, which ultimately only benefits the Fascists. This is what we are seeing now in the US with the Democrats. The only realistic opposition to Fascism in this scenario is Leftism.
I see what you mean and when I first heard that saying I thought so too. That’s why I developed a bit after. In my opinion it does not mean “if you’re not with us you’re against us in an irreversible manner” at all (I don’t fight against individuals, I fight against a toxic ideology). To me, it mostly aims to denounce the fact that centrists are actually right wing people who don’t admit it. And, at least in France, the situation tends to confirm that : Macron was officially “neither on the left nor on the right” and it has become clearer and clearer that he is, in fact, completely on the right end of the political spectrum (if not worse for some of our ministers like Retailleau who clearly carries a far right ideology).
I’m not sure it’s a winning argument that’s all.
Most people aren’t political if they don’t have to be, the only time they think of politics when they have to vote or something is taken from them.
To call them the opposite of what you are just because they feel like they are unsure because they haven’t thought about it as a way to shame them into your position is to lose them and play into your opposition’s hands - “these crazy people are calling you Nazis/Communists”.
Two sides can play the centrist card to grab the unsure while driving a different agenda - I don’t see what’s stopping the left.
Eg Most people are not aware of how much damage France is doing in west Africa through proxy colonialism - if you ask them they’ll probably shrug. If you ask them to vote on it they’ll pick someone that seems somewhere in the middle. Are they colonialist oppressors? Seems like a far fetch.
Now try to strong arm them into a position, how do you think it’s going to go?
I’m not trying to cause or win an argument, I’ll stop here.
In the Netherlands we are lucky that we have actually have a spectrum you can choose from. I am not that versed in the France political system, but I don’t believe in that you are either left or you are right.
I think most people can agree with statements from both the left and the right. At least if they get room to express that.
If you look at left and right political in the Netherlands than there is also an issue. The left generally wants higher taxes for the rich and more income for the poor. The right generally want lower taxes for businesses and want to pay the poor less money to compensate that or something like that. Neither side will focus on the middle class, but currently in The Netherlands it’s the middle class who pay the most taxes percentage wise. (The loss of govern ant benefits, increases the percentage you are taxed in this calculation).
I do believe that there are a lot of good politicians who can parade as somebody else while campaigning and then doing other things after they are chosen. That’s why you generally want more than one person to make decisions. However having 225 people who decide the direction of the country is not working either …
Someone go get that guy complaining about ‘bothsiders’ on lw last week.
Well well well.
Most Democrats don’t realize that capitalism relies on actual slavery… presently. They don’t know that the products they consume revolve around supply chains that even include child slavery. They don’t know the actual effects of US imperialism, regime change, and third-world exploitation. They don’t know that an estimated 40% of US agricultural workers are undocumented immigrants — modern slaves, with no human rights. I’m not being hyperbolic at all, but I suggest everybody do their own research.
Democrats are propagandized to not want to come to terms with the fact that even first-world workers are slaves. They may not be “owned”, but damn near — everybody is getting a raw deal under capitalism besides those that extract the vast majority of value, wealth, power, influence, and control.
Democrats are subjected to intense campaigns that include gaslighting, propaganda, and coercion, while critical facts and the actual reality is veiled to them.
The entire US system is built on top of consumerism. Not saying we are better in NL or Europe, but the US really exploded the consumerism and abused the angelo saxton mindset. Well and the US has been corrupt for a while, probably since it was founded that doesn’t help either.
Even US military policy and the reserve currency is designed to exploit emerging markets. The reason the US can print so much money every year to fund all its programs is because other countries are required to trade in USD so will buy it even though its being inflated so much, and if they decide to trade in something like gold dinars they get overthrown.
What values are you talking about? You must have limited them to something like you shouldn’t eat cockroaches.
Bothsiders are annoying. They’re the same people who see the terrible crap Trump has done, and are like “but what about [tiny thing]! He’s not all that bad”
I don’t think any both siders are around right now in America that aren’t right wing.
In saying that, this post and your comment are examples of the left today being excessively socially authoritarian which labels anyone who doesn’t completely conform the enemy.
The problem is that we see that sort of argument all the time on the internet, which gives us a skewed view of Republicans. The right wing is loud, even leaving out the shills trying to stir the pot.
Both political parties in America represent capital instead of people.
I align with Libertarian Socialism, a left ideology. This is also a leftist/anarchist instance and community. We aren’t Republicans in disguise.
One would have to have some serious bad faith or cognitive dissonance to be able to argue that both sides are the same as a person who firmly aligns with right-wing, capitalist ideology. Republicans thrive on promoting their differences in contrast to Democrats.
Left = Socialism, Right = Capitalism.
If you look at the Political Compass you will see that there are also authoritarians and libertarians (not the right-wing, capitalist ideology) on the Y axis.
Left authoritarians or left libertarians both are well educated on what the left represents. They are able to see the stark contrast between capitalistic parties and socialism.
Democrats are not left-wing or leftist — they most certainly aren’t socialist. They only tease at being socialist.
“bothsides” is by the majority of people in reference to the two political parties (in reference to america), not left wing and right wing in a political ideological sense. As you said both political parties operate within a system of opperssion fighting for control of power. Neither side is good, but one could say that one side is definitley more damaghing than the other in a realist sense.
i think though from my experience, today the left, specifically, moderern progressisvism has become far too socially authoritarian, as an arnarchist type i cant abide by any authoritarianism and the left is no stranger to it.
Neither capitalist party is preferable and capitalism is destroying the planet.
Democrats are not able to fight extreme authoritarianism, fascism, and oligarchy. They have no power or political gravitas. They can’t even take a stand for universal health care…
Value judgements of which side is better are irrelevant: the capitalist US economy relies on various forms of slavery (even child slavery) and third-world exploitation. An estimated 40% of US agricultural workers are undocumented immigrants.
Modern slavery must be abolished. Neither party is calling for the end of slavery, let alone addressing it — it’s a carefully veiled reality.
I agree that neither party is preferable in the sense that the democrats should be praised or idealised and i definitely agree that the democrats and in my opinion “modern progressives” have no ability to combat facism. As they are both the product of eating with a silver spoon for too long and both dont want to change the system of power, they just want to seize control of it and weild for themselves.
The left today is just too scattered to compete with facism. Either you’re a social authoritarain who seeks power but cannot take any tangile steps like facism or you are leftist like many people on this plastform and get stuck in semanticallyu intel;ectualising bygon theories and hyper spefici idealogical labels
I am focused on solutions, not ideology. I do my best to not flaunt the label that most accurately aligns with my ideals (unless relevant) and my ideas generally resonate with Democrats and even some Republicans. People want change and people want progress, no matter where you fall on the political spectrum.
Everybody, regardless of ideology, should be able to focus on solutions and the change we’d like to see — on what kind of world we want to live in. I want to live in a free and kind world, preferably without slavery. The vast majority of people likely feel similarly.
Even authoritarian socialists tend to resonate with that. They want to forcefully centralize power, resources, and control so eventually a more gentle world is born and the state is shed. They think force is necessary, I’m confident we can convince them otherwise.
Maybe it’s naive, but I can see a world that unifies under the banner of change and common sense solutions — a world that is able to cut past the propaganda and polarization and moves forward.
Yeah sorry i didnt intent for any of that to come accross like it was targetted at you.
To clarify i dont mean authoritarian socialists - i mean modern progressives who focus on social issues (not socialism) being overtly authoritarian within the realm of social dynamics in society.
I do think you are naive, but i think its a comendable mindset and just because i think you are naive does not mean anything other than that i dont share the same faith in people as you do. Maybe im too nihilitistic.
Trump is a far-right fascist authoritarian, not the typical Republican we are used to.
They are pointing out validly that the Democratic party moved to the right to where centrists and old-school conservatives once sat.
And you’re allowed to disagree or see things differently.
That looks like an article in regards to a study. Is there further information? Would be really interesting to read the full thing
Sorry I only found the meme. Sounds it should be googlable.
Someone else in the comments provided this
The entire issue with “the middle ground” is that it’s based in relativistic politics which is a complete non-stater since their goal is specifically to not to commit enough to any action such that it actually succeeds. There’re no thoughts behind those eyes, just a weird and bad compromise because they don’t understand anything and are just barely good enough people to not go 100% into hating minorities.
Yes! These people don’t have strong enough opinions to change things, therefore they support the Status quo, which is conservative.
See, moderate Democrats are just right wing. Republicans are closer to fascist. Your whole political spectrum has been wandering to the right for quite a while now. “Radical left” Democrats would be centrist anywhere else.
Nha man the US has politic spectrum, it has only right or left, democrate or replublic. People are either for Trump or against Trump. /s
This is what I’ve been saying about US politics for a long time. They’ve got two parties - the far right, and the batshit crazy right.
Ratchet theory: Republicans push things to the right, Democrats prevent movement to the left.
That, and the democrats are at least competent when it comes to implementing neoliberalism…
I would prefer a government that is further left. I think it would be more moral and create better outcomes for the people, but until we have a chance for that I’ll take competence…
The problem is they have all been extremely successful at demonizing the alternatives. People are hesitant to even think about left ideas because they have been told their entire lives that they are evil.
My main issue with the far left parties in The Netherlands is that they seem to have no understanding of how the tax system works. They would increase social benefits and tax income and houses more. I have seen plans that if they went ahead with it would be taxed even more, but I already get no financial benefit from the government and we make below the median income.
Of course there are more points that they are better at and this post isn’t about NL, but still. I believe that there are a lot of people who don’t get financial benefit from left parties winning or from right parties winning. Unless they get rich. And then the more conservative option feels closer to home so ofc people vote more for that. That’s why you see so many conservative right governments in the west.
At least that’s my theory and one of the reasons why I try to vote on competent progressive middle people. At least when possibile.
The study doesn’t match the headline.
Seriously. The rhetorical shift:
Study of American men’s self-reported political affiliation shows that “moderate” aligns pretty closely with “conservative.”
Headline assigns “moderate” political affiliation to Joe Biden, to suggest that Joe Biden’s policies align closely with “conservative.”
Biden campaigned on being the most progressive president in U.S. history. Did he deliver? Not on all metrics, but whatever it is he did, he wasn’t a secret conservative pretending to be moderate. The most you can accuse him of is being a moderate pretending to be progressive.
Biden was a fundamentalist catholic who thought homosexuality was a sin and abortion was murder.
Everything he did that could be considered progressive he did as a compromise to his own values - that’s what makes him a moderate.
That’s exactly the type of person this article is talking about.
Eh I’ve spoken to Biden personally about gay rights, dude’s not bigoted and leans into the progressive catholic church. His wife being a physician doesn’t see abortion as murder I don’t think. His conservative tendencies are that he’s establishment - he thinks he’s still playing the same football game they’ve been playing since he was a kid. He’s neoliberal as hell as is the entire Democratic leadership, which turns people off.
A catholic fundamentalist will only support marriage as a universal right when not supporting it becomes a liability, for the same reason catholicism and christianity writ large legitimized and supported the institutions of slavery and segregation for far longer than they were publicly popular for
Biden, for all his notable progressive compromises, will drag his feet against doing anything insufficiently popular, no matter how unjust the alternative is.
His wife being a physician
She isn’t though. She’s an Ed.D (her doctorate is in education) not an MD.
She also has an MEd, which is a Master’s in Education. I think people like the one you’re replying to skim her Wiki and read it as Med, as in Medical, which is hilarious.
I think people like the one you’re replying to skim her Wiki and read it as Med, as in Medical, which is hilarious.
I hadn’t thought of that. You’re probably right.
Segregationist Biden is a moderate?
“I’m a liberal on health care because I believe it is a birth right of every human being—not just some damn privilege to be meted out to a few people. But when it comes to issues like abortion, amnesty, and acid, I’m about as liberal as your grandmother. I don’t like the Supreme Court decision on abortion. I think it went too far. I don’t think that a woman has the sole right to say what should happen to her body. I support a limited amnesty, and I don’t think marijuana should be legalized.”
Actions speak louder than words:
“experts say” is a bullshit phrase
You can verify Biden’s racist and segregationist past, or just look at his administration’s complicity in war crimes.
Joe Biden Didn’t Just Vote for the Iraq Invasion—He Helped Lead the March to War
Domestically and internationally he wasn’t a moderate.
I never said he was. Quit making assumptions and have a conversation.
Removed by mod
Definitely wasn’t disagreeing with you haha
“Men on dating apps who say they’re moderate are conservative”
First, we knew that. Second, Biden is not on a dating app.
You mean that the “hot senators in your area” ads are just scams!?!
Well, uh, which app do you have installed? I hear Grindr has trouble during the CPAC conventions.
Do you have a wide stance in the airport bathroom?
(Btw, these are the same people outlawing porn one state at a time.)
You sure about that?
