• Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think the point is that if one side is correct and the other side is incorrect (regardless of which side that is) then someone with that point of view cannot possibly be centralist.

      To be centralist you would have to conceive the both sides have a point. Centralists like to claim that they listen to both sides and then make an opinion on who to support, but they don’t, they just stick around in the middle. They never actually commit to one side or the other, because if they did that they wouldn’t be centralist anymore and they wouldn’t be able to be on their high horse.

      • Maalus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Except life isn’t black and white and rarely is one side “wrong” and the other side “right”.

        Committing to “the truth” is simplifying a grey universe which contains millions of those truths. You can’t be certain which is right and which is wrong.

        • RedAggroBest@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          1 year ago

          “Climate change is an existential threat to humanity” this is the truth, anything that goes against that would be false, yet every right wing group will try and tell you otherwise.

          • Maalus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Okay, sure. But at what level does it stop being a threat? Do we need to revert to a pre-industrial society? Do we need to ban trade shipping? Do we need to get rid of every plane? What alternative sources of energy do we go for? Do they have drawbacks that are acceptable?

            There is nuance to everything. You can’t just shout slogans and say “this is the objective truth!”

            • RedAggroBest@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              13
              ·
              1 year ago

              You seem to have missed my point. What other truth is there than climate change being an existential threat to humanity? I’m not arguing solutions, I’m talking about just acknowledging the existence of a problem. There is no centrist stance here because it either is, or isn’t. Which opinion do you hold? Congrats on finding out your fence sitting has a level of impotence not seen since Henry VIII

            • NoneSoVile@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              You’re avoiding directly addressing their point because you can’t figure out how to answer it without taking a real stance.

              The stated “Climate change is an existential threat”. The right says no it isn’t. The left says yes it is. By nature of the statement it either is or it isn’t, so of course you choose address it in an indirect way that allows you to avoid having an opinion.

              This is a real issue so stop being a fence sitter and take a real stance for once in your life. Or if you choose to never have a real opinion on anything recognize that people aren’t going to take what you have to say seriously.

            • TSG_Asmodeus (he, him)@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Okay, sure. But at what level does it stop being a threat?

              First, the Right Wing would have to admit that Climate Change even exists. Hell, here in Canada our Conservative party voted to not admit it exists.

        • Wirrvogel@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          Deutsch
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          Committing to “the truth” is simplifying a grey universe which contains millions of those truths. You can’t be certain which is right and which is wrong.

          There are a lot of grey areas, but racism and fashism is just wrong, there is nothing grey about it. Trump either won the election or he didn’t, one is a truth and the other is a lie, there cannot be two truths. You are either pregnant or not. You are alive or dead. Just because there are grey areas does not mean that every area is grey. If you have to construct grey areas to avoid committing to the truth, then you are on the side of the lie.

          And if you know exactly where the truth is, and you still vote for the lie, then you are in bed with the liar and getting his flies.

          • Maalus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Again, lots of words to say “right bad left gud centrist wrong” in a very grey world. It’s not how it works. Every decision has its consequences, even ones you might think are “obviously best” at the moment.

              • Maalus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                And yet a lot of the people are simply talking about “right” vs “left” and “false” versus “true”. Sounds an awful lot like “I don’t think about things, I just do what my team says” to me.

            • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              No it doesn’t it means you don’t bother actually considering anything you are literally claiming to be superior by being uninformed. You are claiming ignorance as a virtue.

    • SocialMediaSettler@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sometime the ‘others’ are Russian trolls/bots infiltrating these posts on Lemmy and other sites where leftists hang. Oligarchs hate it when you talk about taxing their excessive lifestyles.