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.
Many major gov’ts currently have major parties courting fascists or are just outright Fascist. Like, have you not been paying attention?
And? Did I say that wasn’t happening? Believe it or not, refusing to engage in diplomacy doesn’t make the problem go away. And they say centrists bury their heads in the sand.
“Centrists to fascists aren’t centrists”
“You just label anyone as Fascist”
“There’s a huge amount of fascists right now”
“Irrelevant!”
… what? I’m sorry, I can’t tell if you’re making a point or if you’re just reacting to comments as they come in. Cause that response made no sense in the greater context. I can’t even tell what point you’re trying to make at this point.
Then let me spell it out for you.
We, as leftists, tend to ignore authoritarians that attach themselves to our movement. I’m talking Marxists, Maoists, etc. These are people who aplogize for mass murderers. When they show up to rallies, they are welcomed. Democrat leaders cozy up to them. I see it happen regularly.
We then turn around and accuse the right of courting facism. This is the right thing to do, but we also need to take a look in our own camp. I don’t want authoritarians of any flavor.
I’m at a dead loss as to how your previous two comments relate to this at all. Maybe it’s my neurospiciness showing, but I can’t connect this thesis with your previous comments in any way.
Also, don’t say “let me spell it out for you”, it just comes across as condescending. It’s like you’re saying it’s so obvious that this was the point you were making when I just stated my confusion on your point. My confusion is an opportunity for you to clarify, not be a dick about it.
Apparently their argument is that left-wingers in general love tankies, which in my experience isn’t true at all.
Well it’s probably my own spiciness showing. I was trying to wrap too many arguments in too few comments. I tried to stave off some of the more common arguments that distract from the topic at hand by making some logical leaps. I thought it would be obvious, but I was wrong. I might have also rolled several replies into one.
The important part is this: the idea that centrists can’t exist because the other side consists of “Nazis” is flawed. The entire spectrum of right leaning and conservative voters are not facists. In fact, most despise them as much as anyone else. The same goes for centrists, from what I have seen.
As to your question, yes I realize that facists are being entertained the world over. I can see what Israel and Russia are doing, and I know it much more widespread than that. I just don’t think the right move is to simply alienate anyone who isn’t already on your side and wait for the fash to take over.
And thanks for not returning my dickish energy, I was heated if you couldn’t tell.
According to this comment, YOU should be downvoting yourself for your previous two comments.
You straight out suggested we should be diplomatic with the Far Right.
We, as leftists, tend to ignore authoritarians that attach themselves to our movement. I’m talking Marxists,
Oh. Now I see why you are downvoted to Putin’s bunker.
Is that the reason? It seems more like they’re being aggressive and not explaining their positions is the reason they’re downvoted.
“First they came for the socialists…”
The moment someone courts Nazism or Fascism, diplomacy goes out the window for anyone worth being considered. There’s a reason the US doesn’t negotiate with terrorists, and that reason stands for fascists and other intolerant authoritarians or hate groups.
For what it’s worth, I feel the same way about tankies. Anyone who would see me dead or censored by force does not get the right to compromise. The Republicans lost that right the moment the first innocent woman got locked in a cage post-Dobbs, if not pre-Roe in the first place.
And how did that policy work out for us? We lost the Afghanistan war. I’m not flat out saying that your argument has no merit, I just think there is room for compromise with those who are not yet seduced by facism.
This argument also relies on the assumption that only facists can be bigots.
Also, I’m not saying we should compromise on all issues equally or that we can’t have our lines on the sand. But I do think there are some issues we can give a little on.
And how did that policy work out for us? We lost the Afghanistan war.
I’m not sure what the Afghanistan war has to do with compromising with fascists. Could you expand your point?
This argument also relies on the assumption that only facists can be bigots.
No. I’ll add anyone trying to enforce government-led bigotry to the list.
But I do think there are some issues we can give a little on.
Look where that gets us. You open with a compromise and they say “no”. You give them 90% of what they want and they say “no”. You finally give in 100% of what they want and they STILL say “no” because it makes them look good. Then they blame you when what they get what they wanted. Just look at Obamacare (not an issue of fascism but an issue with a neofascist party). A conservative president pitching a Heritage Foundation plan got HOW MANY votes from the opposition party after making a bunch of concessions beyond Heritage Foundation? if you’re not keeping count, Republicans provided ZERO total votes for the Republican-castrated ACA. And between blaming Obamacare for everything, half the Republicans took credit for the ACA as if it weren’t the same thing they voted against.
Fuck compromising with people who deal in bad faith.
Then where does that leave us? What options do we have besides completely stun locking the government? I’d honestly like to hear because that’s my major sticking point.
The way I see it, traditional Republicans have no platform. Their platform is simply anti-democrat. This as the reason facists have taken over the party. They, on the surface, represent a solution to the GOPs lack of direction. That’s how they’re convincing moderates to vote for them, imo.
When I say “compromise,” maybe I’m not being precise enough,that’s my fault. I don’t nessisarily mean on actual policy. I do think we need to compromise there as necessary, but I agree with you that we’ve given too much in exchange for too little. What I’m talking about is compromise in regards to how we engage in discourse.
Yea, we need to hold GOP voters accountable if they vote for neofacists. But most arguments we are far too aggressive (much like my own earlier comments). It helps nobody and only give ammunition to the opposition. They are not courting facists, facists are courting them. I believe that this is an important distinction. It means they can still be saved from joining the cult.
Maybe I’m being too optimistic, but I think that anyone (includong you and me) can be convinced to do horrible things if they presented in a way that exploits their existing beliefs.
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
Right of…Stalin? Yes. Of course he does. Was this a joke?
Stalin was authoritarian? Not too far off from a Nazi with the atrocities he committed as well. Not a really apt comparison.
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.
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.
Nazis weren’t socialist. They picked the title to muddy the water on their actual position. They killed socialists and communists first.
Check the 25-point program of the NSDAP. They definitely had socialist points like
We demand nationalization of all businesses which have been up to the present formed into companies (trusts).
and
We demand that the profits from wholesale trade shall be shared out.
But yeah, once they gained their dictatorship they were more focused on nationalism and killing those they didn’t like.
https://www.hmd.org.uk/resource/first-they-came-by-pastor-martin-niemoller/
How do so many people get this wrong?
They abused socialist ideas to rise to power, as I have written in my initial post. How did I exactly “get that wrong”?
Look up Gregor Strasser, Hitler’s right hand until sometime in the early 1930s and then tell me that guy was not a socialist. Which is probably why he got killed during the Night of Long Knives.
Also look at the poem. Stalin was a communist, so he would have been killed even before the socialists. Saying Stalin was “not too far off from a Nazi” is still something that is in need to be explained lol
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.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
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.
Yeah I know way too many right leaning people who I wouldn’t consider fascist based purely on their political views, but they support right wing politicians who are currently getting way too comfy with fascists
Yeah, my neighbor is pro choice, not religious, and still voted for trump twice. Didn’t find out until she refused to get vaccinated while in the Navy.
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?
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.
The problem is you think anyone to the right of Stalin is a Nazi.
Another problem might be thinking that Stalin and Hitler were so very far from each other. They were not.
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.
deleted by creator
Thing is, any reasonably person has by now realised that the Venn diagram of Libertarians and Conservatives is nearly a circle.
deleted by creator
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
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.
What I think doesn’t make me anything. I want an armed population AND domestic spending. Most importantly I want to have the means to draw a line between myself and everyone else and defend that border when someone comes along to twist my arm.
Removed by mod
I’m not left or right
I have news for you bestie
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
You sound lovely to be around
Get off twitter and leave the house.
It is funny how your description of “the left” exactly matches all the right wing strawmen that they use to describe “the left”.
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.
This counts as wisdom to you?
It’s very clearly an analogy.
It’s also a myopic view of political centrism/compatibilism.
Whatever helps you sleep at night.
Recognizing that both sides of the political spectrum represent real concerns from real people who are demographically, geographically, and culturally different, and seeking to find practical, possible compromises between them to benefit the greatest number of people is hardly the same thing as selfish negotiation for personal gain. Both the left and the right would benefit from ignoring distracting wedge issues and cultural politics so they could solve some more important upstream structural and economic issues. The right needs to become more socialist and spend money on great public works and bureaucratic administration, and the left needs to recognize that industry and commerce have enough intrinsic social benefit so as to justify less bureaucratic quagmire. The right needs to pay teachers and IRS auditors, the left needs to pay cops and soldiers. The right needs to reform it’s draconian view of the corrections system, and the left needs to recognize the failures of deinstitutionalization. The right could use less tyranny of the majority, the left could use less tyranny of the minority. Etc etc etc. It’s just the nature of a dialectic to constantly be in negotiation.
Most centrist arguments are about assigning priority and engaging in triage. It isn’t a moral failure to focus on campaign finance reform rather than the age of puberty blockers, it’s recognizing greater harm and limited political opportunity. The modern sentiment that there’s no reasonable center comes predominantly from young people who have never lived in a culture where differing political parties could get along. That’s a consequence of the radicalization of media, not a truism or innate property of politics.
“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
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.)
Oh no, compromises can be bad so we should just retire the concept entirely. (Do I need an /s?)
Without compromise, we wouldn’t have an American Constitution.
If you’re going to use historical examples as a weapon, you’d do well to be better versed in it.
That’s funny, I don’t have the American Constitution.
I also never said not to compromise, as others here have pointed out, compromise isn’t always possible.
Unless you have some sort of alternate history where compromising with the Nazis worked?
I said we, which can exclude you, while including me.
Clearly we don’t have a supermajority in order to circumvent the democratic systems in place to avoid the need to compromise, so if compromise isn’t possible, what is?
The Nazis only lost after several countries unified to defeat them. What would you have Poland do? France? When your only options are to lose or lose faster, compromise is the only possibility.
The Nazis only lost after several countries unified to defeat them. What would you have Poland do? France? When your only options are to lose or lose faster, compromise is the only possibility.
I said Neville Chamberlain, not the leaders of Poland. Poland had no recourse after being invaded by both Germany and Russia; and it didn’t exactly help them, did it? Had the nations of the world stood up to Germany, it’s likely they would have had to back down entirely. You’re starting at the end. Germany didn’t start off invading Poland; they invaded Austria*, then Czechoslovakia. Check out the Munich Agreement for an insight into how well appeasement works with the far right.
“At a Cabinet meeting on 8 September 1937, Chamberlain indicated that he saw “the lessening of the tension between this country and Italy as a very valuable contribution toward the pacification and appeasement of Europe” which would “weaken the Rome–Berlin axis.””
That turned out well too, didn’t it?
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
- * 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.
I love how you all have just generalize nearly 200m. It’s insane to me you folks talk like this, and then are shocked that Trump and the insane GOP is popular. Propaganda is effective. It’s reductionist and a fundamental misunderstanding of a diverse group of idiots.
No one is shocked
Xweet
Fuck this.
It’s tweet.
Xcrement.
It’s called Elon.
“TweeX”?
Maybe a Xhit?
Anyone who labels themselves a centrist is just an embarrassed republican. No one, and I mean, no one on earth is 50/50 on Trump.
Remember that when the media starts flapping about centrists and swing voters.
they dont actually exist.
Elections are about the total number of voters, not convincing a bunch of imaginary people to make a better choice. That is a myth and both parties know it.
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
I’d take it a step farther and say that a centrist is just a fucking moron who believes there’s two sides to everything and both have merit. But these people don’t really exist or are so fringe as to be irrelevant.
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.”
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.
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.
They remember a subreddit called “Enlightened Centrism” and don’t get the joke.
Or European lol Because yeah we actually have more than 2 party
These two blokes are clearly US folks.
Lemmy quite skewed towards American leftists (real left, not democrats)
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”
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.
no one on earth is 50/50 on Trump
This is not being a “centrist”, thats a fifty-fifty-est
I’d absolutely vote for GOP 15 years ago depending on who is running. Today not so much.
If the GOP ever puts forward another Romney I think you’ll find that plenty of centrists exist.
deleted by creator
This comment is embarrassing. Kudos for your ability to inject politics outside of the lens of American politics into a thread clearly about American politics.
deleted by creator
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.
It’s two sentences and both are grammatically correct.
Swing voters most assuredly exist and if you think they don’t you’re ignorant about the US political process
- 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
Removed by mod
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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
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
“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.
One of the worst things we liberals did, including me is not fighting this Republican rot at the start with the ferocity it deserved.
I remember during the Bush years, while republicans were infesting every level of government and calling liberals demons and Unamerican and enemies… We chuckled at them and laughed along Jon Steward how silly these republicans were, while sitting at home complacent. All our leaders kept spouting bipartisanship as the ultimate goal… Meanwhile Republican talkshow hosts were calling Democrats America’s #1 enemy…
We didn’t sense the danger and the massive damage their propaganda was doing to the next generation and to every level of government.
Now we’ve arrived at Trump… And fighting back now is infinitely harder.
It reminds me of climate change… We saw the problems early, yet did nothing and now that we have to do something it’s so much more painful and some of it likely unfixable.
But South Park showed us that Al Gore was a weird nerd who was afraid of something that doesn’t exist! hahaha ManBearPig he’s super cereal!!!
Fuck, I almost forgot about Southpark the grand daddy of bOtH sIdEs!! So many kids grew up regurgitating the both sides turd bullshit because of that show.
iirc. the South Park creators were republican voters. I have no idea how that fits with casually showing up at some gala high as kites on acid.
republicans and drugs, and of course thus hypocrisy
name a better trio
Not everyone. Someone did try to assassinate Regan after all. Bush too (in Kuwait)
I mean, the guy that tried to assassinate Reagan was trying to impress Jodie Foster, so I don’t think he was a woke leftist fighting against Republican fascism.
Mate this has been happening for as long as we’ve been a country.
Both sidesism is so stupid.
“Oh let me hear the fascist nazi’s side that’s trying to kill trans people as a scapegoat! I am so enlightened and balanced to be hearing this side too!”
Anybody who thinks any serious social and political subject only has two sides has never seriously thought about human society and politics.
The entire idea of a centrist is built on top of a ridiculous falacy.
political subject only has two sides
A center isn’t only between two sides…
Mathematically calculated centers for each and every subject on a multi-polar political world fall all over the place, are not consistent between one subject and other in a political sense and move a lot more over time as the miriad of opinion shift even if only slightly, so your mathematical “centrism” would pretty much be “one opinion today, another tomorrow and no political consistency”.
Absolutelly, you can mathematically find a middle point for everything, it’s just that averaging anything but the smallest count of political ideologies (two, maybe three) across all possible human and societal subjects is not going yield a small enough and stable enough area of opinions to add up to a political ideology.
Centrism isn’t necessary an average of political positions, it’s more about the average position when you add up everything
An example would be someone who pro-palestine while being anti-muslim, anti-gender-shenanigans but pro LGBT, anti-taxes but pro-UBI/UBO and on and on
Notice how every single one of your examples of a position is something framed as having only two sides, pro and anti.
There’s a massive area of options in something like, for example, one’s position towards the Muslim Religion, for example, neutral, pro-Sunni but anti-Xiite, pro-moderate Islam (for example, as practiced in the largest Muslim country of the World, Indonesia) but anti-extremist Islam and so on, and even these are massivelly simplified into pro and anti for ease of explanation (just the role of Hadiths in that religion and which should be accepted or not as “divine” guidance generates millions of options which are neither “pro-Muslim” nor “anti-Muslim”).
I suspect you have heavilly interiorized at a subconscious level the “two sides” logical falacy to the point that even when you tried imagining multi-polar politics you still ended up with people on either “one side” or "the other side"on a per-subject basis, which is just moving the two sides logical falacy from the general to the detail (an improvement, yet still anchored on the same reductionist framing and thinking about options in politics and society)
I suspect
You suspect wrongly because you are reading too much in a simple example that was meant to look like someone being in favor of both left/right talking points
