• starlinguk@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    A centrist makes up their mind based on the merits of the topic, not based on opinions from the left or the right. A centrist isn’t someone who says “both sides have a point.”

    So I’m not sure what this comic has to do with centrists.

    • AeonFelis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      A centrist isn’t someone who says “both sides have a point.”

      A centrist should say “both sides have a point”, but they should not stop there - they should critically review these points to decide which ones are stronger and more correct on a case-by-case basis.

      • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I used to be a centrist and the right wing has very, very few points they’re genuinely right about. That’s just the honest truth

    • dangblingus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      “Self professed centrists”

      Something tells me those that call themselves centrists, don’t always subscribe to the actual definition of centrism. But in praxis, centrists share a status quo mentality, which means they’re pro-capitalism, which means they side with the political right on most issues.

        • hopelessbyanxiety@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          “most of us do not subscribe to status quo”. But also “most of us agree with liberal goals”.

          Can you expand on that contradiction? I’m pretty sure liberalism is the dominant ideology in the West. Wich means “most of us DO subrscribe to status quo” ? edit: I have no idea what the goals of liberalism are, maybe we actually agree on whatever goals you were talking about. Still, a lib is never against the status quo

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

              Your definition is very nice, me too i like change. But in practice i see most liberal governments doing 1 main thing: keeping the status quo (racial inequality, homophobia, poverty etc.).

              I’m sure i’m missing something here

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

                  Do you have any secret for pursuing real liberalism? Now i’m struggling to take you seriously.

                  If what you said is true, and considering every politician has exploited the ideology for power, that means true liberalism has never been tried? Cm’on we’ve had 200 years to do it right. Clearly the ideology is deeply flawed, unless you have anything to add.

            • Wak90@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m in the US so this is a US centric point but: what party was in power when roe was overturned? And I don’t mean tell me the technical rules about why that happened I mean in real terms, how have the liberals exercised political power to implement actual change

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

                Why are you arguing about what party was in power? It was the supreme court who did it…

                And how are liberals supposed to enact rm change when they don’t have enough of either house of Congress to do things by themselves and Republicans are determined to be obstructionist? Are they supposed to ignore the rules like Republicans did with Merrick Garland?

                • darthfabulous42069@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Because they’re trying to demonstrate to you that liberal democrats are completely ineffective at stopping the growing fascist right, and quite honestly, they’re right. The Democrats could have expanded the Supreme Court while Obama was in office, but they didn’t. They could have pushed back on every little dumb thing the Republicans have done in the past 22 years, but they didn’t, because they are legitimately just as terrible as they are.

                  You’re just responding with condescension and vitriol because you know your position is weak, and it shows.

                • Wak90@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  If the rules can be ignored then they aren’t really rules are they

          • darthfabulous42069@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Sweetie,

            That kind of behavior is deeply patronizing, destructive to meaningful discussion and completely against the spirit of Lemmy. Please for the love of god, stop acting like this. Literally no one is going to listen to you if you do.

            Also good job exposing yourself as a right-winger masquerading as a moderate.

          • Aer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s actually fucking amazing, having a moderate view and not falling for this culture war bullshit makes us the crazy ones

            But yeah, happily crazy and non-conforming for forming my own beliefs based on what I see with my own eyes.

            When I am talking about being centrist in a place that’s not America for a second. Which I and many people are.

            Choosing a party that fits my belief more aligns with The Labour Party / Liberal Democrats and The Green Party. Which means actively recognising problems with each.

            The Conservatives have a history of slimy corruption, for every 1 good conservative there are 10 others who will screw someone over at any chance they get.

            Not to say Labour/Lib Dems and Green don’t have those problems. They very much do have corruption. Nobody is immune to bad actors. It’s important to recognise it.

            Whenever I see shit in the US when it comes to politics. It’s still the same; lobbiests working with either party in the countries worst interests. If you want to side with team democrat. Call that shit out. It’s bad when your opposition does it, it’s bad when your supported party does it.

            Lobbying is legal bribery, it happens everywhere and each time a law gets passed/brutalised by the powers in charge it’s bad. Doesn’t matter what team colour you support.

            Same shit happens in England with the Conservatives. Though instead of just weakening laws, they make sure that any changes benefit them or their friends.

            This thread is a dumpster fire, and it’s both sad and funny