You must log in or register to comment.
There are no centrists when one side is fascism.
The problem is you think anyone to the right of Stalin is a Nazi.
Edit: I’m glad my manic commenting this morning sparked such wonderful debate.
The problem appears to be that you think anyone left of Obama is Pol Pot
I voted for Obama. And Biden. I’d vote for Sanders, too.
deleted by creator
Stalin was authoritarian? Not too far off from a Nazi with the atrocities he committed as well. Not a really apt comparison.
The only thing Stalin had in common with the Nazis was that he was a socialist. But like many oppressive figures, he only liked the idea of socialism because it traps your underlings into dependency which makes them easier to control under a tyrannical rule.
“He committed atrocities” is not the definition of being a Nazi. If that’s your definition, that’s non-standard and people will misunderstand your points.
oh wow my first “nazis were socialists” post on lemmy. [bender taking photo “neat”] Place is getting big. I mean that’s how you know you made it to the big leagues.
Just like North Korea is democratic. “It’s right there in the name! The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea!” /s, for the stupid.
Read the sentence right after the first. Context is important.
I enjoyed the Futurama reference tho.
“He committed atrocities” is not the definition of being a Nazi. If that’s your definition, that’s non-standard and people will misunderstand your points.
That’s the nicest “stop making shit up motherfucker” I’ve seen
He was a fascist authoritarian dictator who committed countless atrocities under the guise of “socialism”. He is very much like Hitler, historically. But no, he wasn’t a “Nazi”.
Stalin wasn’t fascist, though. Authoritarian, yes; dictator, yes. Fascism is specifically a far-right ideology, though. It’s not synonymous with authoritarianism or totalitarianism, though those terms overlap.
This is what I wanted to express. Thank you for making the effort to understand my post.
No, he was totalitarian. Example of authorutarian is Putin. I would reccomend you to watch Shulman’s lectures about totalitarian and authoritarian regimes, but you will not understand it unless you know russian. Or unless there is lecture in english.
TLDR: “I will kill you for the Idea” is totalitarism, libertarianism is autocracy.
Totalitarianism is a case of authoritarianism.
On that note, “I will kill you for the idea” is fanaticism.
No. Authoritarism implies depoliticization of society and promises like “we won’t touch you, you won’t touch us”, while totalitarism implies very politicized society. Both are dictatorships, but they work differently.
Not saying that one dictator is better than the other.
This is not the first time a Russian fails to comprehend Russian language.
The claim you’re making is a description of “informational autocracy”, which Shulman claims modern Russia were.
No idea what she claims now, when Russia has clearly moved past using just information to control its population since February 2022.
Right of…Stalin? Yes. Of course he does. Was this a joke?
Go back to where you came from redditor. No one wants you here and your smooth brained “le epic trolling XD” is just kind of sad and brings down the mood.
Block me, then.
Good idea.
I have a buddy who is right leaning in several areas. He’s not a Nazi. Not fash.
Like, ok, he’s not super comfortable about trans people which is disappointing but we talked about how outlawing treatment is fucked and he is agrees.
He is all for socialized healthcare. Less into socializing other stuff. And he is pro-2A like me, who is a lefty as in pro-labor, anti-bigotry, social democrat, ACAB, etc.
We talk about politics all the time. And we can see each other’s point of view. Because we talk in person. And we respect each other.
Online with all the trolls and shit especially in this kind of brief social media format, political discourse usually shits the bed and rolls around in it too.
Anyway the folks I consider fascists are the ones who think in social hierarchy instead of equality and think certain identities are below them and want to “put those folks back in their place,” by law or force. T
hey are the ones who favor authoritarianism over democracy and a return to some fake ideal before the civil rights era, before sexual revolution, feminism, women’s suffrage, or in some cases emancipation. They’re people who still praise Trump and DeSantis for the ways they hurt people not like them.
Some of us know what fascism actually means.
Does he still vote in conservatives?
This is the major point that many seem to miss
If they still vote for the GOP they’re endorsing facism, racism and a few other -ism’s and -phobias.
That can’t be reconciled with a good person. If they vote for the GOP I can’t see them as a good person, because they are actively voting against the rights of people like myself.
the folks I consider fascists are the ones who think in social hierarchy instead of equality and think certain identities are below them and want to “put those folks back in their place,” by law or force.
So like, the people who aren’t “super comfortable” with trans people?
But fascism isn’t about what individual people decide to “consider” it to be. It’s a real thing. It has a definition. Idk when we got to this point where reality is debatable, but it may be the only thing that we could stand to go backwards on as a society.
Centralization of power is bad in any economic system. That is one way in which both sides are the same. Which style of dictator would you prefer?
makes something up to cry over
The whole “if you say you’re centrist you’re actually a fascist” argument is literally making something up to cry over.
Anyone not expressly against fascism is perpetuating it whether they realize it or not.
You’re either anti-fascist, fascist, or helping the fascists by not caring.
Just because someone is against assholes like you doesn’t mean they’re not against fascism. In fact, I’d imagine that a lot of them are against you for the same reasons why they’re against fascism.
Unthinking status quoists make for the best nazis.
Removed by mod
Nobody tell them about the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.
I remember when I thought the USSR was communist - simpler times… simpler me - then I picked up a dictionary.
I do listen to “both” sides! That’s exactly why I’m a leftist!
I don’t get why centrists think that you have to be “centrist” to listen to both sides, or why doing so makes you a centrist.
The same reason most smart non rich Republicans say they’re Libertarians: so no one will give them shit.
For America I’m what used to be a centrist, but now unfortunately I would be considered far left. I hate what we have become. Vote blue!
Green is better but not enough people even know about the Green party that it would be viable
I think it’s a difference in how we define words. If we focus on our common ground, first, then we are more likely to listen to each other. To a person who identifies as centrist, a person who calls themselves liberal might appear to be on the fringe of society IF the so-called centrist (who may even actually be liberal) is within a community where they are surrounded by more conservative voices.
Being with my husband has taught me that how we individually define words matters a lot more than we think. He and I grew up in very different circumstances and will often argue different points and then get extremely frustrated at each other for not understanding what we mean. Sometimes I’m thinking “what is he saying, that has nothing to do with what I’m talking about” only to realize that the way he defines a word, phrase, or idea is completely different to my definition.
If you want someone to truly listen to you, you first have to be open to discovering what’s important to them and how they are expressing it
I think their point is that you can get more done with compromise than with strict adherence to your principles. Being right doesn’t mean much of shit if nothing gets done about it.
Meet me in the middle, says the dishonest man. They take a step back. Meet me in the middle he says again.
“The boat is sinking”, says the captain. The crew try to fix the boat the best they can. The captain stops them. “Let’s wait until we can fix it completely.”
The boat is sinking! Says the captain. The captain starts to fix it, but the crew stop him and say well what about the sail. E- removed an autocorrect error.
deleted by creator
This counts as wisdom to you?
It’s very clearly an analogy.
Problem being the compromise usually means accepting the worst bits of the deal. So instead of a race to the bottom its just a light jog.
Sometimes you need to draw out the ‘inevitable end’ for a better solution to be made apparent. Grab a bucket and start throwing water overboard, we might yet make it to port.
The problem is that the other guys are the ones busy kicking holes in the boat, while the centrists share their sincere concerns that buckets are woke, and that stopping people kicking holes and repairing them can’t be done because it’s never been done.
There’s no satisfaction knowing you’re right as you start inhaling lungfulls of water - the morally correct thing to do is save everyone by throwing that motherfucker overboard if they won’t stop kicking holes abnd let you sell their hole-kicking boots to pay for a repair kit.
But the problem is it isn’t one or two people kicking holes, it’s half the damn ship. Morally correct is, again, useless when you can do nothing with it. It’s more complicated than just patching up a hole or two, it’s trying to convince a force as strong as yourself that you’ve come to the correct conclusion while they were incapable of doing the same.
The core problem is a small group of people with disproportionate wealth and political power, which they’re using to exploit the gullible masses. Both are a problem, but if you solve for one, the other solves itself. You also create the opportunity to solve… most of society’s problems.
Compromise only works if both sides are acting in good faith and acutally are trying to get shit done. If one side is actively trying to tear the whole democratic system down then it will just result in a slow decline if the other side compromises.
I think their point is that you can get more done with compromise than with strict adherence to your principles.
Yes, Neville Chamberlain was famously correct in compromising with Germany.
(Do I need an /s? I’ll keep that one just in case.)
I’m not left or right, so if that makes me centrist so be it. Yes, the real political debate of reasonable solutions is happening mostly on the left, and much of the right is reactionary, racist, regressive and retarded. But the left thinks telling me what I’m allowed to think and say is a moral imperative, they’re mostly obsessed with distracting cultural shit, they’re real cunty when I say retard, and theyre all a bunch of fat non binary autistic blue haired weirdos.
The right is a bunch of mean ignorant evil fucks, but the left is a bunch of whiny annoying pussies. The whole human species is asshole.
Removed by mod
Yeah, as it turns out, when you actually hear out both sides, it becomes very clear that one side is, for the most part, completely full of shit. And that the other side barely pays lip service to their supposed beliefs, even though they’re somewhat correct.
If you start out right in the middle, and then every time you find out that you’re wrong about something, change your mind on that topic, overtime you’ll shift further and further left. Not to say being the most left is correct, but the vast majority of correct answers to topics lie to the left of Democrats, while most of the obviously false ones lie within the beliefs of establishment Dems and Republicans.
I don’t like being categorized as a leftist because being a leftist now is just being radical and crazy and I certainly don’t want to belong to this category. So leftists as we see them certainly don’t listen to both sides, that’s for sure (or those people aren’t numerous enough to have a party we can look for, whatever the country you’re talking about). So I would like to call myself a centrist, as it should mean that you listen to both sides, but centrist are apparently right wings who don’t assume being right wings. That’s why I generally don’t answer anymore because all categories are fucked up and I don’t seem to belong to any of them: none of them are able to have rational and nuanced opinions and solutions, whatever the subject.
I have family members who refer to me as Cassandra because I regularly spout “inane nonsense” about the future which then inevitably becomes true.
I don’t have a gift or a crystal ball. I have two eyes and (sadly) a working brain and the werewithal to study history and put one and one together.
We aren’t geniuses by any stretch of imagination. It’s just extremely sad and painful to see almost everyone else keep going with the (just) bearable lies vs the distinctively unbearable truth.
Cassandra… in Greek mythology was a Trojan priestess dedicated to the god Apollo and fated by him to utter true prophecies but never to be believed. In modern usage her name is employed as a rhetorical device to indicate a person whose accurate prophecies, generally of impending disaster, are not believed.
For those who were also wondering
Oh, that’s why that wall street dude uses that name on Xitter!
Xitter rhymes whit shitter he he he hehehe
I’d also suggest Mythos by Stephen Fry. Good book for someone who would like to read about Greek mythology.
Theres no way her family are both smart enough to both dub her Cassandra (given that reference), but also not able to comprehend the reasons behind what she says…
I don’t know quite a lot of conservatives are smart in terms of education they’re just not very good at critical thinking skills.
No, no, she’s the last human in the universe. A bitchy trampoline.
I’m like this, but I’m just a pessimist. I naturally expect a terrible outcome from everything, and get disappointed every time I’m right.
My roomie got called in on an all-staff meeting on a weekend back in spring. They’re truckers, so some work weekends, it’s normal. All-staff meetings were not however. No one divulged any information, and so I was all “oh you’re all getting laid off.” My friend was all “that’s impossible, they’re actively hiring!”
Day came. Gathering started. Atmosphere was great. My friend sent me a text going all “we’re all having a great time, drinking coffee and eating cinnamon buns, talking about work.” Half an hour later “so we just all got laid off.”
The company was struggling as a whole, so they decided to shut down operations in this region in an attempt to downsize and keep the company afloat long enough to remedy the situation. The management didn’t know until right before the meeting, hence why no one knew what the meeting was for.
I realise this isn’t the most enlightened response but I entirely misread “Cassandra” as “Canada” and it made the entire reply SO much more entertaining.
“Surely we can find some common ground between the Final Solution and the status quo?” —centrists
deleted by creator
Centrists are people who think being on the fence about every issue is a shortcut to being intelligent.
But the centrist character on TV said a line that made the other characters shut up! He has to be smart!
goddammit I hate how accurate this is
deleted by creator
There’s the other kind of moron, that thinks both sides are equally wrong. We call those South Park writers.
“Look at those idiots who care and, like, make an effort.”
This thread taught me that Americans don’t even know what centrism is
Centralism doesn’t exist in Europe either. You’ve got the left wing party’s the right wing party’s the ultra nationalist right-wing party’s - if you’re lucky the right-wing party and the ultra national is right-wing party a different parties, sometimes they’re not though.
On that scale centre is right wing. We need some actual communists to balance the political seesaw.
The extremists pretty much all over the world have shifted the conversation so far to the right that there’s no room for a centralist party anymore because if they existed they would be opposed to pretty much everything right-wing party’s would be doing, and then they may as well just be the left-wing party.
Of course there’s centralism in Europe
What are you talking about lol
That’s my point, we don’t.
Look at Turkey, you’ve either got a borderline dictatorship, or you’ve got a party that want a democracy, there isn’t someone in the middle going oh well we should have the best of both worlds.
The right wing have basically pushed their agenda so much that there’s no room for anyone in the middle anymore they’ve stretched the political spectrum so why the middle essentially doesn’t exist. There’s no shades of grey anymore.
If your first argument is Turkey…
That’s like saying the US public transport available by pointing out that Manhattan exists.
How about this… centrist, left, right… all subjective, even more-so regionally.
That is complete bs, my country - Austria - has a center-left and a center-right party and that’s exactly what they are. And we do have an actual communist party, btw.
Most people commenting in political threads don’t know anything about anything.
They remember a subreddit called “Enlightened Centrism” and don’t get the joke.
Or admitting they’re too dumb to make an informed decision. I’m proudly in that camp on several issues. Not going to spout rhetoric I don’t understand.
Or European lol Because yeah we actually have more than 2 party
deleted by creator
Lemmy quite skewed towards American leftists (real left, not democrats)
Remember that when the media starts flapping about centrists and swing voters. they dont actually exist.
That’s about the worst sentence I have seen on lemmy so far.
deleted by creator
- Not talking about grammar and you know it.
- It’s wrong because it’s simply too stupid to assume a whole caucus of voters don’t exist because you haven’t been outside US
deleted by creator
Swing voters most assuredly exist and if you think they don’t you’re ignorant about the US political process
Same applies when you hear an American person say they’re a social-liberal but fiscal-conservative. They think it makes them sound like an enlightened centrist, but as soon as I hear it I think “oh, this person’s a Trumper who doesn’t have the balls to just say it.”
Fiscal conservatives quietly became Republicans, but not “conservatives”. There’s a weird thing going on with that here… Your not wrong, though. They have been greedy cowards of they took this stance in the last few decades.
Fiscally conservative should mean voting for Democrats because Republicans are fucking awful with money.
But the Republicans still hold onto this myth that they’re somehow more financially responsible.
We need a reverse version of that “always has been” meme for “never were”
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
No one exists with views like this. I’ve done my research. I know! LOL
When faced with a different view point they can’t fathom it’s easier to say it is not possible than to have a rational discussion. It’s easier to hate on people than to try to understand them. I find both sides to be extremely lazy in their thinking.
Most people who label themselves leftists think it is socialism when the government does things and thus consider themselves socialists.
It’s not a new thing that people support political ideologies, or identifying with certain ideologies, because they’re dumb.
- * Boasts about listening to both sides of the argument *
- * Doesn’t even bother to read and understand the Xweet they are replying to *
Everyone who claims to be a centralist is like that. They’re not a centralist they’re just a ostrich sticking its head in the sand.
There’s no sensible debate to be had about whether the climate crisis is happening. The Right don’t have anything to offer the conversation because they deliberately refuse to debate sensibly on it.
Xweet
Fuck this.
It’s tweet.
Xcrement.
It’s called Elon.
“TweeX”?
Maybe a Xhit?
Past week, been seeing a lot of anti liberal stuff on lemmy. So, you’ve got people from the outside trying to destabilize the u.s. saying, both sides are the same, democrats are just as bad as Republicans. This creates a scenario that created Trump becoming president in the 1st place. It’s done on purpose.
Now, I understand that democrats, liberals aren’t perfect. But we have one side trying to set up detention camps, threatening to kill political rivals, consumed with hate. Other side trying at least to be better people.
I’m asking honestly, I would like to learn. Why is the both sides mindset becoming so prevalent?
I’m a leftist precisely because I started paying more attention and listening to both sides.
I was a centrist before I started doing that.
Removed by mod
If you are paying attention and you have a drop of empathy then you’re almost guaranteed to be one.
I thought I was a centrist, because it was clear to me that both sides are terrible, and going to kill us all.
Turns out I was just a leftist all along
deleted by creator
Good luck to you then. The more I learn about the world, and the more different people I meet, the more repulsive conservatism becomes.
deleted by creator
That’s a vague response that I can’t really make any reply to.
If you aren’t voting for right-wing parties, that’s a good thing. You might be a pretty middle-of-the-road liberal, at least statistically speaking that’s not unlikely. Which in the grand scheme of things, is still fairly conservative, supportive of the maintenance of the status quo.
So if that describes you, I can see why people would say that’s conservative.
deleted by creator
How is being middle of the road,conservative in the grand scheme of things
I literally explained it in the comment. You should try reading it again.
Maintaining the status quo, opposing change, is still quite conservative. Hell the right-wing party in some countries are the “Liberals”. And note that I said lower-case-c “conservative”. Just because the self-described capital-c “Conservatives” are running further rightward and flirting with fascism, doesn’t make the middle position not conservative.
deleted by creator
ntg but the general kind of surface level spectrum might look more like conservatives, not definitionally, or, in the sense of the origin of the word, conservatives want to regress society back to some previous state. centrists yadda yadda status quo. and then liberals want to progress society, and that’s kind of equivalent to progressivism or leftism. Which is partially because americans are not politically literate, or actually literate, and don’t understand the differences between different words, but also because america as a whole is so far to the right (so is much of the world), and so stuck in the past, that actual leftism is incredibly fucking radical, and advocating for liberalism, or at least, the identitarian implications of liberalism, rather than fucked up plutocracy and bigotry, is still thought of as a leftist position.
Just not being radical and accepting that some things don’t require extreme solutions gets you labelled a conservative these days
no it doesn’t.
deleted by creator
jesus you freaks have such a victim fetish
deleted by creator
College communists will absolutely label the entire democratic party right wing, and will call liberalism a fundamentally conservative philosophy. If you’re surrounded by literal communists, accepting that maybe a literal revolution isn’t the best idea will absolutely get you called a conservative.
That’s not really a new phenomenon, though. The German communist party literally labeled the social democrat party fascists, and thought they were just as bad as the nazis. Turns out they were kinda wrong about that.
College communists will absolutely label the entire democratic party right wing, and will call liberalism a fundamentally conservative philosophy.
I mean. I’m no college communist. But neither of those assertions are particularly out there?
When compared with parties in other democracies, the Democrats are pretty right-wing on many issues. And it’s not strange to refer to liberalism as a conservative philosophy, it tends to place emphasis on private property, free-market economics, and capitalism. There are places where the conservative party are “The Liberals”.
Liberalism, as in the philosophy, isn’t inherently pro-capitalism. There have been liberals that are opposed to capitalism.
“Leftist” means very different things to different people. It’s not a very well-defined term, and really never has been.
Some people will insist that leftist means socialist, and that Nordic-style Social Democrats are actually right wing because Social Democracy is capitalist and anything that involves private ownership of the means of production is right wing.
Others will insist that somehow CNN is the “Communist News Network”, and that anyone left of Trump is a leftist.
So the better question is really what they mean. Did they go from being a college communist to a Social Democrat, or from a Joe Manchin supporter to wanting Charlie Baker to run?
deleted by creator
Ah yeah, the non nuanced view of leftists
deleted by creator
You can literally predict what most college age leftists think about on any given news article before they even open their mouths
go ask some conservatives their opinion on trans people and see the incredible variance in their answers.
deleted by creator
they are blind to their own biases and fallacies
conservatives learn what hypocrisy is challenge
deleted by creator
I think I agree with you. Since the left is more “popular” it now brings in more people with dumber takes. I do think though that some of the problem is were going to need some extreme solutions in the near future for increasingly pressing issues, and determining which of those are reactionary and lazy, and which are needed is difficult
This whole comment is a straw man that feels like it was written by a walking Fox News segment.
They’ve descended into sloganeering identity politics and away from policy largely.
Completely nonsense. Just because there are some slogans like ACAB or BLM doesn’t mean that there aren’t policy proposals, it just means that “modern policing is a corrupt institution with bad systems that lead to bad outcomes and we should end qualified immunity and force police unions to pay when cops drastically abuse their power” doesn’t fit on a bumper sticker.
Lots of leftists genuinely believe society could just remove property, the police, money and all sorts of crazy shit
More complete nonsense. This is lemmy.ml, so they over represent here, but the vast majority of American leftists are mostly along the lines of “we should improve society somewhat.”
They think problems are easily solved with just taxes on the rich and everybody just acting like them as though that’s a realistic proposal.
This one I won’t disagree with. Quite a lot of things could be solved simply by taxing the rich, who are currently experiencing some of the lowest taxes in the history of the US, and during the US’s real heyday from 40-70 or so, were taxed at a significantly higher rate. They were also paid significantly less, with CEO to worker pay usually being around a 10-20x multiplier, instead of a 100s of times. This is simply empirically true, like the fact that other countries exist that do tax the wealthy more, have more social programs, and generally have better outcomes (lower crime, lower rates of poverty, lower rates of maternal mortality, lower overall average mortality, etc.) Even still, the calls for taxing the rich aren’t really even pushing for tax rates of the 50’s, they’re pushing for tax rates of like 2003, or even 2015 before they were given yet another tax break with no plan for paying for it. So yeah, pretty realistic given that we’ve done it in this country, and many countries are still doing it even more than we did.
Don’t even get me started on the modern Monetary theorists who think there is no downside to endlessly printing money.
Please don’t. This would be another argument against a straw man, unless you’re arguing for a gold standard or something which would just highlight a lack of knowledge about modern economic theory.
deleted by creator
as I’ve aged I’ve discovered nuance and pragmatism.
well, you definitely didn’t move right then.
deleted by creator
remind me again how going apeshit every time you see a trans person requires thought and achieves something?
deleted by creator
Why do you disagree vehemently with leftist economics?
I don’t go apeshit when see a trans person.
and i didn’t pull a lever to get the most extreme far left positions
but thanks for assuming that because i disagree with you
another example of the hypocrisy i referred to
deleted by creator
Literally arguing for a middle ground between correct and incorrect because they reflexively have to make themselves look like the reasonable center whenever the left/right dynamic comes up on the internet.
No thought into the response it’s just Pavlovian centrist drooling.
The “others” think they are correct too. It’s simple tribal politics.
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.
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.
“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.
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!”
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
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.
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.
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.
Sure, nobody can be certain, but we make the best decisions we can based on the available data. Predicating your political identity on the idea that the truth always lies in the middle of the Overton Window is what people ridicule about self-identifying centrists. Because the right’s discourse is essentially a fabric of lies, and centrists are always convinced that they must have some good points. That they invariably have the gall to claim to be the adults in the room is just the icing on the stupid cake.
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.
No shit. Having political opinions doesn’t mean “I don’t think about things, I just do what my team says.” Claiming to be politically unaligned doesn’t mean you’re considering things more seriously or carefully than anyone else. Rather the opposite.
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.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
Yeah, imagine that those guys praise themselves for agreeing only to half of a genocide instead of a full one, that’s how their “middle ground” works.
As for listening to both the arguments, if done only for the middle ground instead of truth seeking and actual critical thinking, you get this kind of shit. I listen to both arguments and they still get me to the left side just because the right side ones cancel themselves out as lies, deception or just dumbthinking and emotional response.
Theory: they know. They know we’re in trouble, that we need to take action, that we can fix the problems. They know that they’re wrong and that they’re making things worse, but they don’t care about being right or making the word better, they only care about winning. To change is to admit defeat and, therefore, lose, so the only way to win is to make sure that your opponents lose too.
Looking through all the comments in this topic, it’s sad to see that at this point we’re arguing about defining labels, instead of solving problems.
I love an opportunity to bag on ‘centrism’. It is often used as a cover for political ignorance. After all, would a non-illiterate claim both sides are the same? It only takes a few minutes to find some of the million ways they are not the same.
I once talked with an enlightened “pacifistic” centrist.
At some point I used the low hanging fruit - colonialism! do you think both sides were right? I felt kind of silly for not using a more sophisticated argument but- he said “yes, they should’ve just talked and came to some compromise :)”. It didn’t matter to him that one side was clearly an aggressor, because since the native people tried defending themselves that was enough for him to think both sides were bad.
clearly that fruit was a bit too high still, so I went with the good old - what about Jews and hitler? he replied that still, they should’ve tried to come to some sort of compromise- at that point I was very done talking to that guy. How on earth did he see a possible middle ground between “i’d like to live please thanks” and “i want your whole ethnicity eradicated” is beyond me
the lesson is - start with arguments you find simple and straightforward, ones with obvious answers, because some people can and will trip over even the lowest hurdles, and it’ll save you a lot of time lol
Removed by mod
The Thanos method
“I can alter reality, and there aren’t enough resources to go around. Should I make people requires less resources to survive? Make the resources more plentiful? Naw, imma kill 50% of everybody. I’m so smart!”
The playground metaphor is a great one. And I love this quote:
Paolo Freire said, “Washing one’s hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral.”
It’s not enough to remain neutral in a conflict, be it racism, fascism, colonialism, or otherwise. You have to be actively against it to hold a decent opinion, otherwise you’re assisting the racists, fascists, and colonizers.
deleted by creator
Some people claim “both sides are the same” because they’re politically ignorant.
Other people claim “both sides are the same” because they’re so far left that the distance between the right-wing party and the ultra-right-wing party is insignificant when it comes to the issues they care about. (Note: the ultra-right-wing party has been doing its damnedest to create distance by sprinting even further right, but at least until the recent fascism my argument was pretty valid.)
You can be on the fence about anything, but remember the devil owns the fence.
Now you listen here, bucko. The devil didn’t do all that work for you to associate him with centrists.
Some things are the same and some things are different never ashamed to be blunt about it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGArqoF0TpQ One of my favorite skits for this issue
Hey leftists how about you stick your head in the sand and live in blissful ignorance like us centrists do. Meanwhile our asses are sticking up and we get ass raped by capitalism. But because we “listen” to “both” sides and make up our own mind we decided to actually enjoy it.
If someone says that they are “centrist” they are not telling you that they base all of their opinions on being in the middle of any two positions. That would be astoundingly stupid and is very much a straw-man take on the situation.
They are telling you that they agree with neither major party on everything, and find that both parties have views that they don’t agree with. It’s pretty easy to come to that conclusion because the US two-party system packs in an almost incoherent mishmash of beliefs into exactly two sides.
There is absolutely no contradiction in being for police reform, and against riots lasting for days. There is no contradiction in being for gun rights, while also wanting limits on them. There is no contradiction in wanting functional government services and universal healthcare, and thinking that free markets are effective. There is no contradiction in wanting a more balanced budget, and government services to be funded.
The idea that there are only two sides in politics is a strange delusion created by your two party system.
If you are left wing, and argue for left-wing policies in every case, that means you will also be argued with by somebody who believes political nuance and not just waving a party flag.
The right wing also shits on centrists because they think they are secretly left-wing since they argue with some of their stupider points as well.
These people are not “secretly right-wing” and just don’t have the balls to say it. That is a horrendous take no matter where you fall on the political spectrum the only serves to limit conversation.
The majority of people who identify as centrist/libertarian/“on the fence” are purely doing it because they know that saying they’re conservative gets them attacked.
In the US there really is no compromise anymore, nor can there be. If you willingly vote for a facist, racist, sexist party under any circumstances I’m personally not interested in your opinions at all, because you’ve deemed whatever minor policy more important than my, and many others, ability to live safely in this country.
This seems to be what the so-called centrists don’t get. The issues may be important, but “I am ok with rapists, fascism, and manipulating/stealing elections” should be a dealbreaker.
Even if someone rejects everything else, there’s no doubt that Republicans are the perpetuating force behind Gerrymandering, and that the goal of Gerrymandering is for a minority of voters in a state to have more power in the Federal government.
I am not okay with any of the things you listed and I’d be classified by some as a Centrist or an Independent.
I am also not okay with the politically motivated manipulation of language to support whatever cause a side happens to be involved in which is a thing that both left and right-wings do in the USA.
I’d like to remind you about your other post where you were defending a centrist who voted for all those horrible things “because abortion”. If your “centrist” bin includes everyone from the alt-left to the alt-right, you’re using the word wrong. You’ve already related centrism to the Left, and already related centrism to the Right. At this point, Centrism in your replies to me means “I vote, or I don’t vote”.
I didn’t “defend” them, I simply mentioned that they exist. I’m pro-choice, but stating that they’re right wingers in disguise is disingenuous at best when they only agree with ONE issue. It just so happens to be one that causes them to vote that way.
I don’t relate Centrism to the left or right as it can be quite literally in between any two groups (the example I used elsewhere was between the Green Party and NDP in Canada - both heavily left-leaning parties). To use the above example, a person that wants unlimited abortion available up to the third trimester would be a Centrist on the issue. You can also be Right or Left wing on a specific issue and Centrist on others or overall.
I think we’re going to have to disagree. You seem to have this fantasy about the Center that is so foreign to anything that actually happens it’s getting impossible to respond to you. Not because your arguments are right or wrong, but because they’re coming across as nonsense now.
So… you don’t understand what it is and have your own personal definition, and you don’t like people who match your definition, therefore all that you apply the label to are bad? That seems pretty par for the course for what I’ve seen from US politics currently - anti-intellectual and quick to think the absolute worst about others.
Here’s Wikipedia’s definition if you like. Mine matches it.
deleted by creator
i’ve never met a ‘’‘’‘‘centrist’’‘’‘’ who disagrees with conservative talking points.
To quote the Black Panthers, scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds.
deleted by creator
As soon as someone self describes a a neither right nor left free thinker, I know exactly what they are
Then you either have a very small bubble, or don’t identify some because they happen to have agreed with you on some particular issues.
My boss is one who identifies as a “moderate” and gets offended when people call him right wing or Republican. Yet, on 9/10 issues he sides with the conservative stance. We’ve correctly deduced that he actually is a conservative and votes for conservative candidates in every election, but he doesn’t like being confronted about his association with extremist viewpoints in a blue state so he claims he is just a centrist to take the heat off of himself.
deleted by creator
You just described a Leftist, in some ways. Disagreeing with both majority parties doesn’t mean you have to stand between “evidence-based” and “far-right”.
There is absolutely no contradiction in being for police reform, and against riots lasting for days
That’s being in the middle of the two positions. It’s not that there’s a contradiction, but that you just ate up the rhetoric that BLM protesting was all “riots lasting for days”. And “Police Reform” is a middle-of-the-road alternative to “follow the evidence, defund 90% of the police and have non-lethally-armed services do those things”. This fits our description of centrist to a tee
There is no contradiction in being for gun rights, while also wanting limits on them
Sure. I’m a leftist who feels this way. The “real center” here, though, would be the Democratic party, who still want less gun control than most civilized nations. Your view perhaps resembles the “the Right is so bat-shit insane that conservatives are confused for moderates”?
There is no contradiction in wanting functional government services and universal healthcare, and thinking that free markets are effective
I mean… yeah there is. If free markets were effective, we should be gutting all government services and regulatory bodies. Nobody actually believes free markets are effective. There are those who embrace the buzz-word without realizing it, and then there are those who want the free markets because they are ineffective and that the profit margins available to them are massive.
There is no contradiction in wanting a more balanced budget, and government services to be funded
Again, this is the formal Democratic position. The formal Republican position is called “Starve the Beast”, and it is for there to NEITHER be a balanced budget NOR be government services funded. I’m not making that up. On this view, you sound like a Democrat, but if you vote for Republicans on their economic stances despite matching Democrats, that makes you the middle of the two views again.
The idea that there are only two sides in politics is a strange delusion created by your two party system.
Obviously, but there are two sides to every issue. If we get back to the OP issue, it’s that one side has been screaming “climate change is real and permanent damage is imminent” and the other side has been screaming “climate change is fake and God loves us”. Centrists have been between the two saying “I know the meteor is headed for us, but my retirement is more important to me than the world still being around when my kids grow up”. We’ve been dealing with 40+ years of that. But yeah, that IS between the two sides.
If you are left wing, and argue for left-wing policies in every case, that means you will also be argued with by somebody who believes political nuance and not just waving a party flag.
The funny thing is that for 9 policies out of 10, most lefties just argue for the educated position against the “gut instinct” or “I know science says this but it worked for me” position. Hell, just look at the topic of parents hitting kids and it covers all the nuances of the leftist problem. Is the Left always correct? No. But the Right and/or Center is a broken clock in this. I think the Left is wrong on Gun Control and the Democrats are right. That’s about the only issue I can think of right now that the majority of the Left is wrong on. Not because I’m a leftist but because I’m educated in the issues.
The right wing also shits on centrists because they think they are secretly left-wing since they argue with some of their stupider points as well.
Not quite. They pretend centrists are the far left and shit on them, so that “moderate” really means “neocon but not seeking Handmaid’s Tale”.
These people are not “secretly right-wing” and just don’t have the balls to say it. That is a horrendous take no matter where you fall on the political spectrum the only serves to limit conversation.
Anyone who voted Trump in 2020 was either ignorant or Right-Wing, regardless of what they claimed to be. He is against fiscal conservativism, against modern medicine, and was caught red-handed working with Russia to steal the 2016 election. His presidency damaged the economy, but also focused that damage on states that net-provide resources for the country as a whole because they are Democrat. A person in New York paying an extra $10,000/yr in taxes with reduced overall QOL and COVID-dead family members “voting Trump anyway” is not a centrist.
weird you can get so much correct and still somehow fail to see gun control is crucially important. I see this a lot in left wing Americans. it’s like some sort of epigenetic brain disfunction, that doesn’t permit logic and guns to meet. so strange.
weird you can get so much correct and still somehow fail to see gun control is crucially important
I didn’t say it wasn’t important. I just know that gun rights are important. There are a small number in the American Left who want us to have gun laws that are more extreme than most of Europe). Then there are a larger number in the American Left who try to write gun control without actually educating themselves on the issue. And they are outspoken, uneducated and reactionary (sorta like the Right)
Good gun control IS important. Bad gun control does nothing. So many gun control advocates don’t understand what living 50 miles from the nearest town looks like. Ever been charged by a wild animal living in a town without PD, knowing the deputized PD the next town over doesn’t have Animal Control and tells you “shoot it” if you call with an animal complaint? There’s a difference between Free Gun drives in Urban Centers and actually needing them. Background checks? Registries? Bans on excessive weapons/munitions? That’s fine (though the last gun control bill I read had bans on things like heat compensation, so I guess gun owners need to burn themselves).
I see this a lot in left wing Americans. it’s like some sort of epigenetic brain disfunction
Ah yes. Nothing like the Left talking things out in good faith and respect. Our Right can get an atheist businessman and a Christian Zealot into a room and come out happy, but we’ve got factions in our Far Left threatening to execute each other or refusing to consider their positions on the issues without them having “epigenetic brain disfunction”.
that doesn’t permit logic and guns to meet.
Here’s for logic. I’ve never met a gun ban advocate (let’s be honest, that’s the kind of Gun Control the left won’t agree on. We all agree on smart gun control) whose answer to “what about people who actually need guns to live” was anything different than “tough fucking luck. I’d rather you get mauled by a bear than deal with the nuances of country vs city life”.
I had a bear in my back yard last month destroying shit. He didn’t come after anyone, but a couple miles down he surprised a family and endangered a kid. He needed to be shot (luckily he survived like bears do, but he ran away and the kid was safe). And you don’t want a bolt-action weapon when dealing with a bear or a pack of coyotes. You want a semi-automatic.
I have never once voted for the right-wing party in my country (Canada). I also don’t agree that any left-leaning party in my country is particularly great. If I were in the US, I would be presently voting for the Democrats, but only because they are the least bad of the two. I would also be stumping for third-party candidate viability as a solution to this.
you just ate up the rhetoric that BLM protesting was all “riots lasting for days”
It was vague on purpose. I’m not discussing a specific set of current events, merely commonly attached attitudes to events that have occurred throughout history. Police forces vs. protesters is a pretty common recurrence, no “rhetoric eating” required.
Nobody actually believes free markets are effective.
Well, if you’d like to actually discuss, they are to a limited extent. I also believe that the government should step in to break mon- du- and tri-opolies. If a bail out is required, the government should then own the business and all patents should be made public. Patent timeframes should also be restored to the original or shorter as all it’s doing is stifling innovation. Some industries should be removed entirely from being for-profit. Now you go!
Centrists have been between the two
Maybe some. Centrists and independents are not a cohesive group with set ideals. Each individual has their own stance. It also doesn’t mean that the views they hold are always between the two parties in power, but instead means that they fall between any two parties. As an example, I could be a Canadian Centrist between Green and NDP; I’m still a centrist. This makes ragging on the label kinda worthless because depending on the scale, most people are Centrists. I would be screaming at the top of my lungs about the fucking meteor in your example instead of wasting time on social politics. Yelling “Whataboutism” with things that important is fucking absurd when one means we’re all going to die roasting in our own goddamn juices.
Trump
The dude sucks, no doubt. To me he represents the enshittification of modern politics, but… You can vote for Trump and still be centrist just like you can still have voted for Hillary and be a Centrist. It depends on what you value most and to what extent. There was a really good episode of Radiolab a few years back that discussed this. Basically, a legal US immigrant (with undocumented family members) voted Trump despite feeling that the man was disgusting and disagreeing with him on literally every single issue but one. The one issue they believed in so hard though, that it was enough to vote Trump (in that instance, their line was abortion). If you have a line that you will not cross, then that’s all there is for some people. You can say they’re wrong (and in that instance, I would agree with you), but they’re neither stupid nor gullible.
This is another case of how more (and more varied) political candidates would help.
So let me get this straight. You’re on the Left’s side with everything the Right has been calling riots? You’re on the Left’s side on every issue? But you’re a centrist?
I mean, that probably reads for Canada, where your Right-wing party sorta resembles Democrats with an added hint of fascism (at least, that’s how my Canadian friends put it. I genuinely am not an expert on Canadian politics).
The one issue they believed in so hard though, that it was enough to vote Trump (in that instance, their line was abortion)
If you want to lock women and doctors in cages for something that a vast majority of your country thinks is 100% acceptable, then you’re a monster. If you want to include them in “Centrists”, have at it. But single-issue voters are absolutely something “we who dislike centrists” toss into that category that disgusts us.
You’re on the Left’s side with everything the Right has been calling riots? You’re on the Left’s side on every issue? But you’re a centrist?
Well, now we’re getting personal and not into party / nomenclature semantics. But no, I’m not on the “left” side of every issue.
For example, I gave the example elsewhere in this thread, but I believe in much tighter immigration controls, if not outright eliminating most of it for now. You may look at that and call me a racist. You would be wrong. The race is irrelevant, and it’s an environmental and economic stance that led me there. Our current immigration policies allow pushing down the minimum wage, makes UBI more difficult (if not impossible) to implement, and allow countries that are outstripping their resources to simply place those people elsewhere instead of dealing with their population issues in a realistic way. This is one of many things that has also irreparably damaged the environment.
Something done for good reasons is having bad knock-on effects and we should adjust things before it gets worse. In my experience, a Centrist gets to say “right idea, horrible implementation, let’s fix it” instead of just clinging to an ideal.
I don’t like people making baseless accusations. I defend people on all sides when people are wrong about their opposition. I hate it when people think they know what others think and project incorrect (and often evil) bullshit on each other. It’s important to be right with the right reasoning and conclusion, not just one or the other.
I care when Christians purposely mischaracterize Muslims, and I am neither of those groups. I hate people being wilfully wrong because their group fetishizes a certain angle of the truth instead of the boring reality of the situation.
Ideas are important and I don’t feel we can get out of the current shitty slump we’re in politically unless we clearly identify and discuss the world. Labels and group membership make that harder to do.
If you want to lock women and doctors in cages for something that a vast majority of your country thinks is 100% acceptable, then you’re a monster.
Sure. The opinion expressed wasn’t mine, and you’re free to think that all you want. It was just an example of a position that didn’t fit your definition. The episode didn’t get into whether they felt like locking people in cages was appropriate or otherwise. Maybe they had in mind another solution. I don’t know and they didn’t get into it.
Basically, a legal US immigrant (with undocumented family members) voted Trump despite feeling that the man was disgusting and disagreeing with him on literally every single issue but one. The one issue they believed in so hard though, that it was enough to vote Trump (in that instance, their line was abortion). If you have a line that you will not cross, then that’s all there is for some people.
“I’m not a fascist but I am willing to vote a fascist into power if it means I can get my way on this single issue” isn’t going to win over many left-wing people.
Centrism was a perfectly acceptable position when the left- and right-wing had broadly similar goals - a better society, a healthy economy, a happy population, a somewhat fair society, etc. Different sides might disagree on the methods, but they could find compromises to reached their shared goals.
However, modern day right-wing ideals are totally incompatible with left-wing ones. Many right-wing ideals and policies actively cause suffering and inequality. They enrich corporations and billionaires at the expense of regular people. They harm minority groups. They cause misery. Even if someone isn’t actively chanting for the death of minorities in the streets, being willing to enable all that makes them at best ignorant, selfish, and possibly stupid (especially in the case of your Radiolab guy).
I’m not totally against centrism, but centrists - especially in two-party systems - are defining themselves based on both parties. If one of the parties is awful and the centrist is unwilling to distance themselves from them, the centrist deserves the criticism they get.
I don’t think the person was tying to win over left-wing people. They were voting the way they felt was right, which is how voting is supposed to work. They don’t need to vote to make you happy, and they seemed very conflicted over it.
I personally agree that many right-wing policies cause misery. You’re arguing like I’m right-wing and I am not.
That being said, I also think current left-wing policies are mostly toothless, focus on feelings over making the world better, are too easy on the wealthy, and are mostly preformative because the real solutions would alienate voters and donors alike - they seem to coast on “Let’s not make things actively worse most of the time!”
I know they likely weren’t trying to win left-wing people over specifically, I was just trying to explain why centrists are generally disliked by left-wing folks. Them being able to entertain voting for fascists and for generally misery-inducing policies is what makes left-wing people see them as fundamentally not that different from right-wing people. If someone’s so strongly against abortion that they’re willing to vote for a fascist (or at least seriously consider it) then, for most left-wing people, they’re not just trying to achieve a similar positive goal through different methods, but rather they’re actively a bad person.
That’s not to say if you’re left-wing you have to blanket disagree with every single right-wing policy - and I do genuinely think everyone should consider each individual issue on their own merits rather than just adopting the party line - but the overall right-wing package is just so awful that “enlightened” centrists being willing to entertain it are awful by extension.
I do agree with you about left-wing policies being toothless, and I think a lot of left-wingers are lacking in pragmatism - particularly when it comes to achieving their long-term goals and the sacrifices they might need to make to reach that point. Far too many left-wingers are willing to make perfect the enemy of good and end up suffering for it.
Of course, it’s difficult when the right-wing are so good at rallying together and unifying different factions in order to get power. A lot of the right-wing’s ideology is simply “get into power”. Meanwhile, the left-wing is a mish-mash group filled with differing ideologies and factions that unite more out of necessity in order to be politically relevant and competitive with the right-wing than because they necessarily want to be a unified group. I’m not from the US, but I’ll use the US Democratic party as an example: the party’s overall stance is somewhat centre-right by most countries’ standards, but it’s also the party die-hard left-wingers have to vote for and support if they want any kind of representation at all. It makes it very difficult for genuine left-wing policies to get pushed through.
In the current political climate, left-wing parties tend to rely on swing voters to get into power, too. So not only do they have to try to appeal to all the varying ideologies of the people who make up and consistently support the party, they also have to try to appeal to the moderates. “Radical” left-wing policies would lose the support of moderates and swing voters, and therefore lose the party their political power. Sticking with the US example: the US’ Overton window is so far to the right that real-world left-wing solutions to problems would probably ensure the Democrats don’t regain power for years. There needs to be a more gradual shift to the left and a de-escalation before any real changes and solutions can happen.
And I agree with nearly all of that, and I would call most of the ideology you listed Centrist or independent (which are interchangeable to me when I talk about them, frankly), but I see what you’re meaning.
It doesn’t mean you’re the centre of current USA right and left wings, which most of the people in this thread mischaracterise them as. It means you’re between two points. Which points? Talk to them and find out. Maybe it’s a left-wing position but they disagree vehemently on the “How” of the situation. Maybe it’s a right-wing position, but they have a non-shitty take (like I tried to show with my immigration example elsewhere).
I desperately hate the “Centrists only want to kill some of the trans people” argument some make (even in this thread). It’s disingenuous, anti-intellectual, and flat-out wrong.
Again, the real and long-term solution is to make more parties viable.
(As an addendum, thanks for actually discussing and not being just a shithead like some others!)
Bro, you’re describing an independant.
Centrism is, by definition, staking your position as the middle between two (or more I suppose) defined positions. The reason it’s such a ridiculed stance is that it’s not based on any sort of principled viewpoints or analysis of the issues, and as one position shifts to extremism, the self-defined centrists follow happily along.
Just because you frame two positions as dichotomies does not mean that someone who agrees with parts of both is a centrist. It could mean they are false dichotomies (i.e. pro-riot vs pro-police) or they are positions where nuance is appropriate. Having a nuanced view is NOT being a centrist, unless the depth of your nuance is “Person A wants all of the things, and Person B wants none of the things, therefore the clear and correct answer is to have SOME of the things”. Especially when the thing is something like systematic racism or corruption.
The fact that US politics is so polarized that we’re constantly conditioned and primed to lump our positions into one of two (often incoherent) camps explains why centrism happens, but it’s not a defense of centrism.
Wikipedia disagrees as does every other definition I found.
Centrism is a political outlook or position involving acceptance or support of a balance of social equality and a degree of social hierarchy while opposing political changes that would result in a significant shift of society strongly to the left or the right.
The far left and far right each have some funny ideas that aren’t fair to the rest of the country in America (and in some cases the world). Thinking about how best to move forward while getting as many people on board as possible and affect real change doesn’t mean “Hey other side, get fucked. Civil war time because I can’t have everything I want in all scenarios!”
The “false dichotomies” that you’re speaking about are simplifications to get the point across and are not false. You can feel that there needs to be a better system and that people in power shouldn’t be able to ignore issues that they find uncomfortable so that riots are not needed, and also be opposed to destroying things belonging to people not in power. There is nothing false about that.
I don’t agree with both parties (in the US) on most things … it’s kind of why I’m left. The Overton window is so fucking far right you have democrats running on a platform of “nothing will fundamentally change” while moving into the center right spaces that the GOP left behind when they finally started saying the quiet parts of loud
For real: these “neither right nor left ‘free thinker’ types” invariably skew the same way. 3 guesses a to which way that is
I’m not even in the US, I’m just mystified by these threads whenever they come up. It’s always the highest level of straw-manning I’ve ever seen…
“You better attach the correct labels to yourself **and ** agree with my personal version of that label or FUCK YOU! YOU’RE BRAINWASHED! My carefully curated group of friends that think the same as me and social media where I’ve blocked everyone else says that I’m right! Here’s a video of an expert on my side that says I’m right that neither of us will watch. Bet you feel dumb now, huh?”
I said no such thing, but good job constructing an argument to have with yourself. You win!
I wasn’t talking specifically about your post, I was talking about the thread and things I was seeing as you appeared to be? But uhh… Allrighty!
There is absolutely no contradiction in being for police reform, and against riots lasting for days. There is no contradiction in being for gun rights, while also wanting limits on them. There is no contradiction in wanting functional government services and universal healthcare, and thinking that free markets are effective. There is no contradiction in wanting a more balanced budget, and government services to be funded.
That is a left position in the US.
The republicans are against police reform (except eliminating the FBI) and in favor of riots (as long as they are to overturn elections a Democrat won). They want no limits on gun ownership (except maybe black and LGBT people). They think the government is always worse than free markets and that child labor is part of a healthy free market. They want a balanced budget only when a Democrat is in office, otherwise they are fine with blowing trillions on tax cuts for the rich. The only government service they care about is ones to suppress and control non-white people.
Being against riots, and being for gun rights are not typically leftist ideals.
Edit: I mistook riots for protests. I stick by the gun rights stuff being right wing. I know what Marx said, I have a copy of the manifesto on my coffee table. Communism is about arming the workers against the proletariat, but not about guaranteed access to guns which is what gun rights means in the US. None of the major communist countries constitutions mention civilians rights to own guns, and the majority of them seek to limit civilians access to them. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, either.
The left is in favor of protests, not riots. They are different in spite of the media conflating them. As far as gun rights not being leftist, let me quote Karl Marx “Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary”.
Why do communist countries all typically enact gun control after the revolution, historically? In the Soviet Union, civilian gun ownership was illegal. In Cuba, they are very strict about giving licenses for them and you need to provide a valid reason. They are about arming the workers against the proletariat. Once that is accomplished, they typically seek to limit gun ownership. Not that thats a bad thing.
FWIW, I am a gun owning socialist, so I know all about this. Everything right of socialist and left of center is most definitely against gun rights. That is the vast majority of the “leftists” in the United States which is what I was referring to in this scenario.
As for the riots, you are correct. I mistook riots for protests in my ignorance, my bad, but we can’t act like rioting isn’t something in the anarchist playbook. Sometimes it is most definitely warranted.
Edit: you can downvote me that’s fine but you still never answered my question. If the far left supports gun rights, why do none of them have gun rights in their constitutions? And why do they limit civilians access to them? That doesn’t sound like gun rights to me, but idk. Unlimited gun rights are dumb, anyways, and that’s why I would not connect it to the left who are actually sensible about it. Nobody should have unlimited rights to guns. It should be a position of privilege for those who are licensed and have valid use for them.
First, I didn’t downvote you. To your question, I would argue that the US Constitution was written by the far left and it includes gun rights.
I also think it is important to distinguish between gun regulations originating from those in power and those originating from popular support (NZ for example).
Fair enough. The US constitution was written by people who were probably far left for their time, now that you make me think about it. I guess I just took gun rights to mean the US version of gun rights which are a bit extreme compared to the rest of the world. Sorry about getting my jimmies all rustled up there.
Literally nobody is pro-riot. That’s just right-wing propaganda.
There are groups of anarchists that are indeed “pro riot” as a form of protest. I guess maybe you could say burning businesses and vandalizing things isnt rioting, but most other people would call it that. They are mostly young punk kids from my experience. There aren’t a ton but they do exist. They don’t go after neighborhoods like right wing media would portray, they target buildings owned by corporations that kind of deserve it, mostly. I’m not saying rioting is always a bad thing, myself. Sometimes it is warranted when a matter is serious enough and all other avenues aren’t working.
I’m sorry, but when someone’s “enlightened centrism” is between queer people having rights and getting murdered in the street I don’t really care about your other options. You are a facists enabler at that point.
Yeah, that’s not what it would mean though and that’s a massive straw man definition. You’ve made up something you don’t like and applied to a group that you now also don’t like.
It’s like a Republican saying that they don’t like Drag Queens molesting kids. They made something up, and applied it to a group they don’t like. You just did that to someone else.
You can be a centrist or independent and agree with every single LGBTQ+ talking point on the books; the label is irrelevant to a stance on any specific issue.
In fact, the labels are often the problem.
I find it a bit funny that this is basically the same argument that bisexual people face, especially in the US. You are ether “secretly gay, and afraid to commit to it” or you are “actually straight, and want to experiment” You can’t just like both sides, you have to pick one.
This person gets it.
You criticize others for being brainwashed by the 2 party system, but your own understanding of left and right seems to be based on that very 2 party system
Nope. I don’t use terms like brainwash unless I’m speaking about the literal act, not just media consumption (or making fun of those who do use those terms like I did in another response).
I do think that labels and identity politics are one of the worst things to be socially pushed, however. Group membership, gatekeeping those groups, and surrounding yourself with an echo chamber are the results. And with that, welcome to current politics. If you’re a “Liberal” and identify as such, then that generally means certain things a large majority of the time. If you call yourself a “Conservative,” then that also has connotations. When was the last time you heard a self-identified Liberal / Conservative want something considered a wedge-issue that was opposite to their standard issue position? It’s increasingly rare.
If you call yourself an independent or centrist, both sides will call you stupid and assume you’re the opposite of what they are by default because they’ve been trained to immediately think the worst about anyone that’s not 100% on-board with what they feel. I’m in Canada - we have more viable parties than the US (notably the NDP), but it still happens here.
If asked, I don’t tell people I’m anything. I argue individual points because then I can’t be dismissed by people who see only the label and then plug their ears and run away.
“Why don’t you listen to both sides of the argument and make your own opinions and arguments based on that?”
Bitch, why do you think I’m a fucking leftist???
The enlightened centrist here comes across as a Republican too embarrassed to admit it – it seems to be a core thought in conservatism that anyone who isn’t conservative just hasn’t formed an independent opinion, and if they did that, they’d be conservative.
